MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029339907 · doi:10.4141/p05-104

Autumn growth and its relationship to winter survival in diverse safflower germplasm

2006· article· en· W2029339907 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ronald C. Johnson, Li Dajue, V. L. Bradley

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSunflower and Safflower Cultivation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarthamusHardiness (plants)HabitBiologyFrost (temperature)CultivarGermplasmAgronomyHorticultureSowingGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The relationship between several autumn growth traits and winter survival was determinedin 11 diverse safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.) accessions grown at Central Ferry and Pullman, WA, USA. The safflower was sown in September 2002 and 2003 and plant population counts were taken 6-8 wk after emergence, and after the last frost in the spring to calculate winter survival. Growth factors including plant habit and height were also measured in the autumn. The Pullman plots in 2003–2004 were lost during an usually cold and windy November, but otherwise survival ranged from 90% for BJ-27, an introduction from China, to zero for the cultivar Saffire. Winter survival was negatively correlated with more upright plant habit (r = -041**, n = 97) and plant height (r = -0.29**, n = 97). However, some accessions with low plant habit (prostrate growth) and low height values had relatively poor survival. The results show that BJ-27 has sufficient winter survival to achieve over-winter safflower production for many areas. Autumn plant habit and height can predict the potential for winter survival, but physiological factors related to cold acclimation appeared to determine if that potential is realized. Key words: Carthamus tinctorius, safflower, winter hardiness, cold tolerance

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 score0.118
Threshold uncertainty score0.893

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.183 · 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

Citations12
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicSunflower and Safflower CultivationFrench-language works237,207