Effect of a postbloom naphthaleneacetic acid thinning spray and hand thinning on quality and quantity of pear fruit (<i>Pyrus communis</i> L.) cv. Harrow Sweet
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effect of naphthaleneacetic acid (NAA) and hand thinning on quality and quantity of pear fruit (Pyrus communis L.) cv. Harrow Sweet was investigated in 2005, 2006 and 2007. The experiment included the following treatments: an unsprayed control, hand thinning to 3 fruit cm-2 of trunk cross-sectional area (TCSA), hand thinning to 6 fruit cm-2 of TCSA, NAA at 8 mg L-1 (2005-2007), NAA at 16 mg L-1 (2006-2007) and NAA at 20 mg L-1 (2007). The same treatments were applied to the same trees in each of the three years. NAA thinning did not reduce yield per tree and had no negative effect on fruit set, yield efficiency, or crop load in any of the years. In 2005 and 2006, NAA and hand thinning significantly increased fruit diameter and weight. In 2007, only NAA at 20 mg L-1 significantly increased fruit diameter and weight relative to the control. Fruit firmness was not influenced by NAA or hand thinning in 2005 or 2007, but in 2006, hand-thinned fruits were significantly less firm than control fruit. Hand thinning to 6 fruit cm-2 of TCSA increased fruit soluble solids content in 2006 and 2007. Neither NAA nor hand thinning influenced total sugars or organic acids in fruit. Key words: Yield, sugars, organic acids, HPLC
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".