MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011396550 · doi:10.4141/p00-142

Re-analyzing historical records of winter injury in Finnish apple orchards

2001· article· en· W2011396550 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Leena Lindén

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Physiology and Cultivation Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSuomen Kulttuurirahasto
KeywordsHardiness (plants)Frost (temperature)MalusRootstockClimate changeGeographyBiologyCultivarHorticultureEcologyMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Frequent winter injury is a major problem in apple (Malus domestica Borkh.) production in northern areas. Discriminant and cluster analysis were used to determine the critical climatic factors associated with winter injury occurrences in south-western Finland over a 71-yr period, 1927 to 1998. Years with and without winter injury were best characterized by variables indicating mid-winter severity: the monthly mean, minimum, and maximum temperatures from January to March. Also, weather conditions during the preceding summer and fall contributed significantly to the discrimination between winter injury and no injury years. A decrease in growing degree days, drought in August, and a high level of precipitation in September were associated with winter-kill years, probably due to their impact on the annual cycle of vegetative growth. The hypothesis on the adverse effect of mild spells during early and mid-winter could not be verified by this study. Mid-winter frost resistance was confirmed as the most important winter hardiness characteristic in the semi-maritime climate of Finland. At high latitudes rootstocks and cultural practices should be chosen to ensure that trees acquire vegetative maturity even under adverse weather conditions. Key words: Malus domestica Borkh., winter injury, climate, variety, discriminant analysis, medoid clustering

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.253
Threshold uncertainty score0.958

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations20
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicPlant Physiology and Cultivation StudiesFrench-language works237,207