MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969107809 · doi:10.4141/p02-061

Évaluation de l’endurcissement au froid et de la reprise de la croissance de quatre cultivars de rosiers de la Série Explorateur<sup>MC</sup>

2003· article· fr· W1969107809 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
M. P. Lamy, J. A. Rioux, C. Baeza

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2003
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Physiology and Cultivation Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Des tests de congélation en conditions contrôlées ont été réalisés au cours des automnes 1999 et 2000 sur des plants entiers de Rosa ‘Captain Samuel Holland’, de R ‘Champlain’, de R. ‘John Davis’et de R. ‘William Baffin’afin de déterminer la température la plus froide à laquelle ils peuvent survivre. En général, les différentes parties des plants se sont endurcies au froid entre la première série de tests (octobre), la deuxième série (novembre) et/ou la troisième série (décembre). Les TL50 associées à la survie des plants se rapprochent des T50 se rapportant aux dommages les plus sévères survenus sur les racines et des TL50 se rapportant aux dommages observés à la base de la partie aérienne des plants. Les plants qui ont survécu aux températures se situant immédiatement au-dessus des TL50 de la reprise accusent une diminution de croissance souvent très importante. La TL50 de la reprise des plants du cultivar ‘Champlain’é tait de l’ordre de -14,5 °C lors de la troisième série de tests alors que celles des autres cultivars variaient de -19,5 à -23,0 °C. Key words:

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicPlant Physiology and Cultivation StudiesFrench-language works237,207