Efficient Mowing for Pruning Wild Blueberry Fields
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY Commercial wild blueberry (Vaccinium angustifolium Ait.) fields were mowed in spring and autumn at low (2.5-5 cm; 1-2 inches), medium (5-7.5 cm; 2-3 inches), and high (> 7.5 cm; > 3 inches) heights with a flail mower and also with a rotary mower (> 7.5 cm; > 3 inches), in order to determine optimal heights for mowing. Initial stem lengths reflected differences in mowing heights at both sites, but there were no differences in plant heights at the end of the pruning year growth, or in the spring of the crop year. There were no differences in buds per stem or in fresh fruit yields among the treatments at the Adams field, or among the flail mowed plots at the Murray Siding field. Yields in rotary mowed plots were lower than yields in all other plots at the Murray Siding field, and also stems were more branched than were stems in the other treatment plots. These results suggest that producers can mow their fields at higher heights without impact on plant growth and production, as long as they use the flail mower. Mowing at greater heights results in less damage to equipment, plants and soil, and is more economical than the low heights of mowing presently recommended for the industry.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".