Consensus Document on the Biology of Populus L. (Poplars)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The OECD’s Working Group on Harmonization of Regulatory Oversight in Biotechnology focuses its work on the development of Consensus Documents that are mutually recognised among Member countries. These Consensus Documents contain information for use during the regulatory assessment of a particular product. This consensus document addresses the biology of poplar species (Populus L.). Poplars are an important and prominent feature of forests throughout the Northern Hemisphere where they are also among the most frequently planted tree species. They are important raw material for wood pulp, particleboard, plywood, lumber, boxes, matchsticks, and small woodenware (Farrar 1995). The bark contains tannic acid, used in tanning of leather, and the fragrant balsam found in the buds of some species is sometimes used for medicinal purposes (Sargent 1965). While several species occur in Canada, trembling aspen (P. tremuloides Michx.) has the largest forest inventory of any broadleaf tree species, comprising 80% of the merchantable standing poplar timber with a volume estimated at 1,857 million m3 (Morley and Balatinecz 1993).
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 | 0.026 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.011 |
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".