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 OpenAlex
Kevin Sanderson, Sherry Fillmore

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

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.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.465
Threshold uncertainty score0.484

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.062
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