MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1938467197 · doi:10.21273/horttech.13.1.0106

Reducing Mechanical Damage during Transplant Digging Increases Early Season Fruit Yield of Strawberry

2003· article· en· W1938467197 on OpenAlexaffabout
John R. Duval, Craig K. Chandler, D. E. Legard, Peter R. Hicklenton

Bibliographic record

VenueHortTechnology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBerry genetics and cultivation research
Canadian institutionsNova Scotia Department of Agriculture
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiggingFragariaHorticultureYield (engineering)ProductivityBiologyCropGrowing seasonHarvest seasonGreenhouseAgronomyEnvironmental scienceGeographyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Transplant quality can have a major effect on the productivity of many crops. Bare-root, green-top transplants for Florida winter strawberry ( Fragaria × ananassa ) production are produced mainly in highlatitude (>42° N) nurseries. Mechanical digging machines are used to remove plants from the soil at these nurseries before transport to production fields in Florida. In the course of this operation, crowns, petioles, and leaves may be crushed and broken. Machine and hand-dug bare-root transplants of `Camarosa' and `Sweet Charlie' were obtained from a Nova Scotia, Canada nursery, planted at the Gulf Coast Research and Education Center, Dover, Fla. field facility on 2 Nov. 1999 and 10 Oct. 2000, and grown using standard annual-hill production practices. Plots were harvested twice weekly beginning 5 Jan. 2000 and 15 Dec. 2000. Hand-dug transplants produced significantly higher monetary returns both seasons. Therefore, fruit producers may consider paying the higher cost associated with changes in harvesting and packing operations needed to reduce damage to transplants.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

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)0.0030.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations2
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHortTechnologySame topicBerry genetics and cultivation researchFrench-language works237,207