MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011872735 · doi:10.1300/j301v03n01_01

Introduction to the Proceedings of the Ninth North American Blueberry Research and Extension Workers Conference

2004· article· en· W2011872735 on OpenAlexaffabout
Charles F. Forney, Leonard J. Eaton

Bibliographic record

VenueSmall Fruits Review · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBerry genetics and cultivation research
Canadian institutionsNova Scotia Department of AgricultureAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNinthExtension (predicate logic)Library sciencePolitical scienceEngineeringComputer sciencePhysicsProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The North American Blueberry Research and Extension Workers Conference (NABREW) has convened nine times over the past 42 years (Table 1). The proceedings of the ninth meeting, which occurred in Halifax, Nova Scotia during the summer of 2002 will be presented in two parts of the Small Fruits Review, Volume 3. In Part I, papers on the management of lowbush, highbush and rabbiteye blueberries are presented. The conference was attend by about 100 people representing experts in taxonomy, breeding, physiology, culture, management, storage, processing, and marketing of blueberries from throughout North America, Japan, China, and Korea. The conference included 27 oral and 28 poster presentations addressing ongoing research on highbush, southern highbush, rabbiteye, lowbush, and other native species of blueberries. Tours

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.115
Threshold uncertainty score0.385

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1150.035

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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations1
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSmall Fruits ReviewSame topicBerry genetics and cultivation researchFrench-language works237,207