MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1928190800 · doi:10.21273/hortsci.39.1.71

Irrigation Method and Temperature of Water Affect Height of Potted Easter Lilies

2004· article· en· W1928190800 on OpenAlexaff
Theo J. Blom, David Kerec, Wayne Brown, Dave Kristie

Bibliographic record

VenueHortScience · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFlowering Plant Growth and Cultivation
Canadian institutionsAcadia UniversityUniversity of GuelphMinistry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIrrigationLiliumHorticultureGreenhouseTransplantingBiologyShootBotanyAgronomySowing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Potted greenhouse-forced `Nellie White' Easter lilies ( Lilium longiflorum Thunb.) were irrigated from emergence with water at 2, 5, 8, 11, or 15 °C either onto the shoot apex (overhead) or onto the substrate for a 0, 2-, 4-, 6-, 8-, 10-, or 12-week period. Control treatment was at 18 °C, either overhead or on substrate. When irrigation water was applied overhead for the entire period between emergence and flowering (12 weeks), plant height increased linearly with the temperature of irrigation water (1.75 cm/°C). As the period of application with cold water increased from 0 to 12 weeks, plant height decreased both in a linear and a quadratic manner. Forcing time was negatively correlated with height with the shortest plants delayed by 3 to 6 days. Water temperature did not affect bud abortion or the number of yellow leaves. Irrigation water temperature had no effect on plant parameters when applied directly on the substrate.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations7
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHortScienceSame topicFlowering Plant Growth and CultivationFrench-language works237,207