Revealing the Application of Synchrotron‐Based X‐Ray Computed Tomography in Healthy Versus Unhealthy Interior Lodgepole Pine ( <scp> <i>Pinus contorta</i> </scp> var. <scp> <i>latifolia</i> </scp> ) Conelets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The reproductive cycle of interior lodgepole pine spans approximately 26 months, with seed cones initiating in late summer, followed by pollen conelets emerging the next spring when pollination occurs. Fertilization and cone maturation occur in the subsequent spring and fall. Successful pollination, critical for seed conelet retention, requires an ~80% success rate. In June 2020, 30 pine clones (genotypes), with contrasting conelet abortion rates, were selected from a production seed orchard in Alberta, Canada. Sixty conelets per clone (30 aborted and 30 healthy) were collected for synchrotron radiation–based microcomputed tomography (SR‐μCT) analysis. A subset of two contrasting clones (1401 and 596) was selected for detailed study. Conelets were transported to the Canadian Light Source in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, for SR‐μCT Phase Contrast Imaging (PCI), where samples were mounted and scanned using a PCO Edge 5.5 sCMOS camera and analyzed using Avizo software to visualize internal structures. Results showed that healthy conelets in clones 1401 and 596 had greater tissue volume (248.8 and 251.9 mm 3 , respectively) and more organized cavity spaces than aborted conelets (64.7 and 102.1 mm 3 , respectively), with differential internal air space volume (clone 1401: 8.7 mm 3 in aborted vs. 17.5 mm 3 in healthy; clone 596: 6.9 mm 3 in aborted vs. 11.5 mm 3 in healthy). Overall, SR‐μCT imaging demonstrated significant advantages over traditional methods of visualization by providing a nondestructive, high‐resolution analysis of internal structures. In addition, this technology enhances our understanding of pine reproductive processes, improving management practices in seed orchards—the delivery system for 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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".