Evaluation of Winegrapes in British Columbia: New Cultivars and Selections from Germany and Hungary
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Eighty-five cultivars, selections and clones of winegrapes ( Vitis ) from European breeding and selection programs were evaluated between 1993–95 in a randomized completeblock experiment. These included selections from Alzey, Freiburg, Geilweilerhof, Geisenheim, Weinsberg, and Würzburg (Germany); Hungary; and the former USSR. Vines were grown under an organic management regime that included sodium silicate sprays for powdery mildew ( Uncinula necator ) control and oil + detergent for insect control but with little to no nitrogen or other nutritional inputs. The Weinsberg cultivars Heroldrebe and Helfensteiner showed promise viticulturally and sensorially as alternatives to `Pinot noir'. Cultivars from Geisenheim (`Gm 7117-10' and `Gm 7117-26') and Würzburg (`Cantaro' and `Fontanara') appeared promising as `Riesling' alternatives; many displayed similar sensory characteristics to `Riesling', along with reasonable viticultural performance. Cultivars selected at Alzey (`Faberrebe'), Freiburg (`Nobling'), and Weinsberg (`Holder') displayed sensory characteristics superior to the standard cultivar Müller-Thurgau, with very intense muscat, pear, fig, and spicy aromas and flavors. Several muscat-flavored Hungarian white wine cultivars appeared to be superior viticulturally and sensorially to the standard `Csabagyongye'; these included `Kozma Palne Muscotaly', `Zefir', and `Zengo'. Miscellaneous red wine cultivars that showed promise included Geilweilerhof cultivar Regent, and Hungarian selections Kozma 55 and Kozma 525. Vine yields decreased substantially in the 3-year evaluation period, primarily due to lack of nitrogen. Many of these cultivars appeared to be highly adaptable to viticultural regions where cold winters and low heat units during fruit maturation presently restrict cultivar choices.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".