MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975523011 · doi:10.1300/j301v03n01_10

Effects of Salt Deposition from Salt Water Spray on Lowbush Blueberry Shoots

2004· article· en· W1975523011 on OpenAlexaffabout
Leonard J. Eaton, Kevin Sanderson, Jeff Hoyle

Bibliographic record

VenueSmall Fruits Review · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Physiology and Cultivation Studies
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaNova Scotia Department of Agriculture
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSalt (chemistry)ShootHorticultureDeposition (geology)Salt waterChemistryBotanyEnvironmental scienceBiologyEnvironmental engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY Many commercial lowbush blueberry (Vaccinium angustifolium Ait.) fields border the Bay of Fundy and the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Qualitative producer observations in these areas indicate that salt spray from the marine environment during winter months reduces yield of the lowbush blueberry. To quantitatively examine the effects of ocean spray on the lowbush blueberry, the amount of salt deposited on stems of this species was assessed at several commercial sites in the Canadian provinces of Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia between 1998 and 2000. Randomly selected areas of commercial fields were protected with 1.8 m × 0.45 m (5.9 ft × 1.48 ft) shelters covered with 4 mil plastic film. Data on growth, yield, and salt deposition on shoots were recorded from both protected and exposed plants. Results varied according to location, weather conditions, and snow cover. Tree line wind protection and snow cover appeared to reduce the severity of salt spray-induced damage to the lowbush blueberry. In general, the exposed plants exhibited more salt deposition (mg g−1 dry weight of stems), more dead buds, fewer blossoms and lower yields in comparison to covered specimens.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSmall Fruits ReviewSame topicPlant Physiology and Cultivation StudiesFrench-language works237,207