The Grafting Tomatoes Crop - an Alternative for Vegetable Growers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. In Romania tomatoes represent the most important crops in greenhouses, generally adopting a continuous monoculture. Since crop rotation is rarely adopted, the reduction of yield, both in quantity and quality, progressively affects the crops. Investigations in Horting Institute showed that after 4 years of continuous tomato monoculture a yield reduction up to 48 % occurred,thus making necessary the adoption of soil disinfestations practices or, other methods. The treatment of soil with methyl bromide was used only by large commercial farmers (107.72 tons methyl bromide in 2003). Since the adhesion to the Montreal Protocol, Romania government decided to phase out methyl bromide use starting 2005. Results of the demonstrative plots (MAKIS-project) obtained in 2008-2010 indicated for the Romanian conditions, the following methyl bromide alternatives were suitable for soil disinfestations: metham sodium (chemicals methods), and grafting tomatoes (non-chemical method). Grafting tomatoes cultivars with high quality and productivity on rootstocks that are resistant to the soil pests and diseases is a method known for years ago, but which was improved and quickly spread in the last years. The main result of the grafting process is the increase of the resistance against soil diseases and pests, respectively the quality of fruits.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".