MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W201089599 · doi:10.24266/0738-2898-27.4.207

Propagation of Twelve Alaska Native Plants by Summer Stem Cuttings

2009· article· en· W201089599 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Patricia S. Holloway, Mia R. Peterburs

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Horticulture · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSeedling growth and survival studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsCuttingWillowBiologyBotanyAlnus glutinosaHorticultureBetulaceaeSalicaceaeShrubPerliteAlderSalix viminalisRubusVegetative reproductionWoody plant

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Twelve Alaska native plants were propagated from softwood and semi-hardwood stem cuttings collected from late June through August. Cuttings of new growth were treated with 0.3% indole-3-butyric acid powder and propagated in horticultural grade perlite and vermiculite (1:1 by vol) under intermittent mist with bottom heat [26C (79F)] in a greenhouse with a minimum night temperature of 15C (59F). After 6 weeks, cuttings were harvested and evaluated for rooting percentage and root quantity. Four species rooted poorly (< 25%) regardless of collection date: Siberian alder ( Alnus viridis ssp. fruticosa ), silverberry ( Elaeagnus commutata ), Bebb willow ( Salix bebbiana ) and shrub birch ( Betula glandulosa ). Best rooting (> 80%) occurred June 20 for: Beauverd spiraea ( Spiraea stevenii ), sweetgale ( Myrica gale ), and thinleaf alder ( Alnus incana ssp. tenuifolia ). Peak rooting for dwarf birch ( Betula nana ), feltleaf willow ( Salix alaxensis ), balsam poplar ( Populus balsamifera ), Labrador tea ( Ledum groenlandicum ) and littletree willow ( Salix arbusculoides ) was early to mid July. During peak rooting times, all successful species developed adequate root quantities for survival following transplanting.

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)0.000
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 score0.483
Threshold uncertainty score0.462

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.205
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 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

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental HorticultureSame topicSeedling growth and survival studiesFrench-language works237,207