MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391774037 · doi:10.5558/tfc2024-004

Tree Improvement in Canada – past, present and future, 2023 and beyond

2024· article· en· W4391774037 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Barb R. Thomas, Michael Stoehr, Stefan G. Schreiber, Andy Benowicz, William R. Schroeder, Raju Soolanayakanahally, Chris Stefner, Ken A. Elliott, Newton Philis, Ngaire Roubal, Pierre Périnet, Martin Perron, Dale Simpson, M. S. Fullarton, Josh Sherrill, Mary B. Myers, David Steeves, Simon W. Bockstette, Basil English, John Kort

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsGovernment of Newfoundland and LabradorGovernment of Nova ScotiaGovernment of Prince Edward IslandGovernment of New BrunswickNatural Resources CanadaMinistère des Ressources naturelles et des Forêts (Québec)Government of AlbertaGovernment of ManitobaGovernment of CanadaSault CollegeOntario Forest Research InstituteGovernment of OntarioMinistry of Energy, Northern Development and MinesWillow Biosciences (Canada)Government of British ColumbiaAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaMinistry of ForestsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTree (set theory)ForestryEnvironmental scienceGeographyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper consolidates the most current information available on tree improvement in Canada and provides a summary of key historical events leading to its development and expansion across the country. The most recent publication on the topic was by Fowler and Morgenstern (1990) compiled over 30 years ago. Since that time, many things have changed and new technologies, such as the increasing use and adoption of genomics, have become part of the tool-box of tree breeders in forestry and natural resource management. This paper provides information on the status of tree improvement programs including their history, objectives, seed production, future outlook and other performance measures by province across Canada.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.634
Threshold uncertainty score0.669

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.187 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Forestry ChronicleSame topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207