MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412097278 · doi:10.3390/f16071123

Assessing the Height Gain Trajectory of White Spruce and Hybrid Spruce Provenances in Canadian Boreal and Hemiboreal Forests

2025· article· en· W4412097278 on OpenAlexaffabout
Suborna Ahmed, Valerie LeMay, Alvin D. Yanchuk, Peter Marshall, Gary Bull

Bibliographic record

VenueForests · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsGovernment of British ColumbiaUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTaigaBorealForestryWhite (mutation)Environmental scienceEcologyGeographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We assessed the impacts of tree improvement programs on the associated gains in yield of white spruce (Picea glauca (Moench) Voss) and hybrid spruce (Picea engelmannii Parry ex Engelmann x Picea glauca (Moench) Voss) over long temporal and large spatial extents. The definition of gain varied in the tree improvement programs. We assessed the definition of gain using a sensitivity analysis, altering the evaluation age with the definitions of the baseline and top performers. We used meta-data from provenance trials extracted from the literature to model the yields of provenances relative to those of standard stocks. Using a previously developed meta-model and a chosen gain definition, a meta-dataset of the gain of plantation ages was developed. Using this gain meta-dataset, a gain trajectory model was fitted for white and hybrid spruce provenances across Canadian boreal and hemiboreal forests. The planting site, mean annual daily temperature, mean annual precipitation, and number of degree days > 5 °C had large impacts on gain. This model can be used to predict gain up to harvest age at any planting site in the boreal and hemiboreal forests of Canada. Further, these gain trajectories could be averaged over a region to indicate the yield potential of tree improvement programs.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.861
Threshold uncertainty score0.900

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForestsSame topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207