Rootstocks Impact Vine Performance and Fruit Composition of Grapes in British Columbia
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nine wine grape cultivars [`Chardonnay', `Gewurztraminer', `Ortega', `Riesling', `De Chaunac', `Marechal Foch', `Okanagan Riesling', `Seyval blanc', and Verdelet'], own rooted or grafted to four rootstocks [`Couderc 3309' ( Vitis riparia × V. rupestris ); `Kober 5BB' (5BB), `Teleki 5C', and `Selektion Oppenheim 4' (SO4) ( V. riparia × V. berlandieri )] were planted into a randomized complete block experiment in 1985. Data were collected on yield components, weight of cane prunings (vine size), and fruit composition between 1989 and 1996. Yield per vine, clusters per vine, cluster weight, and berry weight were not affected by rootstock, but SO4 tended to produce lowest berries per cluster. Lowest vine size was associated with 5BB and own-rooted vines were usually largest; 5BB was also associated with highest crop load (yield to vine size ratio). Own-rooted vines tended to produce berries with lowest percentage soluble solids (%SS) while 5BB led to highest %SS. Titratable acidity was not strongly affected and pH differences between rootstocks were very small. These data suggest that rootstocks may not provide significant advantage over own-rooted vines under conditions found in the arid regions of the Pacific northwestern U.S. and British Columbia.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it