Crown architecture development in <i>Salix</i> ‘Prairie Cascade’, a pendulous willow
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a longitudinal quantitative architectural study of Salix ‘Prairie Cascade’, a hardy pendulous willow cultivar developed for the Canadian Prairies. Trees were propagated from cuttings in 1993 and detailed measurements were obtained on amount of extension growth, orientation of shoots with respect to gravity, and the fate of buds and shoots until 2000. Instead of the mixed axis model of Champagnat typically ascribed to weeping willows, upright main-stem axes were constructed by vigorous, mostly distal shoots that remained more or less upright. The pendulous habit was largely the result of lateral shoots that were initially upright or semi-pendulous, drooping under their own weight to become pendulous. The pendulous habit was exacerbated by the weight of foliage. Sylleptic shoots were frequently incorporated into the main-stem axes. From original 1993 shoots, 40% of the buds developed into sylleptic shoots compared with 29% that developed into proleptic shoots. Two orders of sylleptic branching were often produced in one year. Willow is known for branch shedding but only 7% of ‘Prairie Cascade’ shoots were shed in the first year; however, more than half were gone by the third year and most of those remaining were located on the upper half of parent shoots.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".