MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983110665 · doi:10.4141/p05-244

Resistance of sweet cherry cultivars to fruit surface pitting

2006· article· en· W1983110665 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Frank Kappel, P.M.A. Toivonen, S. Stan, D.-L. McKenzie

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Surface Properties and Treatments
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCultivarHorticulturePrunusBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A recently developed technique was used to determine the susceptibility to fruit surface pitting of new sweet cherry (Prunus avium L.) cultivars and compare them to an industry standard. The cultivars tested included Bing (industry standard), Cristalina, Lapins, Sandra Rose, Santina, Skeena, Sonata, Staccato, and Sweetheart. Fruit were harvested at commercial maturity, injured, held at 1°C for 2 wk and then rated for fruit surface pitting. The cultivars Lapins, Skeena, Staccato, and Sweetheart had less pitting than Bing. Cristalina and Sonata tended to have similar levels of injury to Bing and Sandra Rose and Santina tended to have more severe pitting than Bing. Key words: Sweet cherries, cultivars, simulated pitting injury

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.841
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.174 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations14
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicPlant Surface Properties and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207