MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1555364284 · doi:10.71318/apom.2009.63.3.115

Performance of ‘Golden Delicious’ Apple on 23Rootstocks at 12 Locations: A Five-Year Summary of the 2003 NC-140Dwarf Rootstock Trial

2009· article· en· W1555364284 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Richard P. Marini, Brent Black, R.M. Crassweller, Paul A. Domoto, C. Hampson, Scott Johnson, Kevin R. Kosola, S.J. McArtney, Joseph Masabni, Renae E. Moran, Rubio Quezada, T.L. Robinson, Curt R. Rom

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of American Pomological Society · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Physiology and Cultivation Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRootstockBiologyHorticultureYield (engineering)BotanyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2003, an orchard trial of apple [ Malus× sylvestris(L.) var. domestica(Bork.) Mansf.] dwarf rootstocks was established at 12 locations in Canada, Mexico, and the United States using ‘Golden Delicious’ as the scion cultivar. A core group of 11 rootstocks was planted at all locations. The four rootstocks included as industry standards were Malling 26 EMLA (M.26 EMLA), Budagovski 9 (B.9), M.9 Pajam2, and M.9 NAKBT337. The other seven rootstocks included selections from Russia (B), Cornell-Geneva (CG and G), Czech Republic (J-TE), and Germany (Pi Au); these included B.62396, CG.3041 [Geneva® 41], CG.5935 [Geneva®935], G.16, J-TE-H, and Pi Au56-83, and Pi Au51-4. Some locations also received two additional CG rootstocks, seven Japanese (JM) rootstocks, J-TE-G, or two Pi Au rootstocks. After five years, trees on J-TE-G were similar in size to B.9; trees on B.62396 and CG.3041 were similar in size to M.9 NAKBT337; trees on CG.5935, G.16, J-TE-H and M.9 Pajam2 were similar in size to M.26; and trees on Pi Au56-83, Pi Au51-4, Pi Au36-2 and JM.2 were larger than M.26 EMLA. For the first time in an NC-140 rootstock trial, several rootstocks have higher yield efficiency than M.26 EMLA and M.9 NAKBT337. Promising new rootstocks with very high yield efficiency included CG.5935, CG.3041, CG.5179 and J-TE-G.

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 score0.834
Threshold uncertainty score0.188

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations15
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of American Pomological SocietySame topicPlant Physiology and Cultivation StudiesFrench-language works237,207