Genomic selection in western redcedar: from proof of concept to operational application
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forests face many threats. While traditional breeding may be too slow to deliver well-adapted trees, genomic selection (GS) can accelerate the process. We describe a comprehensive study of GS from proof of concept to operational application in western redcedar (WRC, Thuja plicata). Using genomic data, we developed models on a training population (TrP) of trees to predict breeding values (BVs) in a target seedling population (TaP) for growth, heartwood chemistry, and foliar chemistry traits. We used cross-validation to assess prediction accuracy (PACC) in the TrP; we also validated models for early-expressed foliar traits in the TaP. Prediction accuracy was high across generations, environments, and ages. PACC was not reduced to zero among unrelated individuals in TrP and was only slightly reduced in the TaP, confirming strong linkage disequilibrium and the ability of the model to generate accurate predictions across breeding generations. Genomic BV predictions were correlated with those from pedigree but displayed a wider range of within-family variation due to the ability of GS to capture the Mendelian sampling term. Using predicted TaP BVs in multi-trait selection, we functionally implemented and integrated GS into an operational tree-breeding program.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".