MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995257781 · doi:10.1080/15538362.2010.530110

Evaluation of Native Rose Selections for Rose Hip Production in Prince Edward Island

2010· article· en· W1995257781 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kevin Sanderson, Sherry Fillmore

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Fruit Science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicHorticultural and Viticultural Research
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRose (mathematics)HorticultureEcotypeCuttingCanopyBiologyLivestockYield (engineering)FleshAnimal scienceBotanyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study was carried out to determine the potential for the commercial production of rose hips in Prince Edward Island, Canada. Native rose (Rosa spp.) ecotypes were propagated by cuttings taken from wild populations. The experiment was conducted at the Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Crops and Livestock Research Centre, Harrington Research Farm in Harrington, PEI in 2005. A replicated trial consisting of 30 wild rose selections was first harvested in 2006. Data from the top 14 ecotypes are reported on based on yield potential. Mean fruit weight ranged from 1.01 g to 1.62 g per fruit; seeds per fruit ranged from 33.5 to 66.3; flesh to seed ratio ranged from 1.34 to 2.57 g/g. Generally, first flowering was observed at 190 Julian day number (JDN) followed by full flowering at 199 JDN. Mean rose hip yield averaged over the first four harvest years ranged from 411 to 2,000 kg ha−1. In 2009, selection s26 and s30 produced 3,634 and 2,676 kg ha−1, respectively. Selection s26 had the largest canopy and best survival rating.

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 score0.913
Threshold uncertainty score0.173

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.314 · 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
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Fruit ScienceSame topicHorticultural and Viticultural ResearchFrench-language works237,207