MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027440941 · doi:10.5539/jas.v5n9p222

Suitability of Selected Seed Genotypes of Prunus armeniaca L. for Harvesting Seeds for the Production of Generative Rootstocks for Apricot Cultivars

2013· article· en· W2027440941 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Marek Szymajda, Kris Kris Pruski, E. Żurawicz, M. Sitarek

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Physiology and Cultivation Studies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrunus armeniacaRootstockCultivarBiologyOrchardHorticultureFrost (temperature)AgronomyBotanyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2008-2011, at the Research Institute of Horticulture in Skierniewice, Poland seven genotypes of Prunus armeniaca L., designated MN-1, MN-2, MN-4, MN-6, MN-46, MN-53 and MN-59, were evaluated for use as trees to provide seeds for the production of generative rootstocks for apricot cultivars. The study was conducted on trees growing in the Experimental Orchard in Dabrowice (central Poland). The best as seed trees proved to be genotypes MN-4 and MN-46. Their flower buds are resistant to frost, the flowers are well able to tolerate spring frosts, and the trees yield regularly and produce a lot of small fruit. Trees of these genotypes are also characterized by a relatively low growth vigour and produce seeds with a high germination capacity. The results indicate that genotypes MN-4 and MN-46 are very suitable for harvesting seeds for the production of generative rootstocks for apricot cultivars in countries located in the seasonally cold regions of the temperate climate which represent the northernmost extent of apricot cultivation.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations6
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicPlant Physiology and Cultivation StudiesFrench-language works237,207