MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038748268 · doi:10.4141/p02-092

Revue de la biologie et de la production du ginseng à cinq folioles (<i>Panax quinquefolius</i> L.) en milieu forestier au Canada

2003· article· fr· W2038748268 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Isabelle Nadeau et, Alain Patrick Olivier

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2003
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGinseng Biological Effects and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForestryGeographyHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La racine du ginseng a cinq folioles, une plante originaire des forets de feuillus de l'est de l'Amerique du Nord, est tres recherchee sur le marche asiatique en raison de ses diverses proprietes medicinales. Les populations naturelles de l'espece etant aujourd'hui menacees, l'approvisionnement des consommateurs repose essentiellement sur la culture. La presque totalite du ginseng a cinq folioles est produite en champ, a tres forte densite, sous des structures d'ombrage. Au cours des dernieres annees, toutefois, de plus en plus de producteurs ont commence a produire cette espece en milieu forestier, ou les arbres jouent notamment le role de procurer l'ombrage necessaire aux plants. Ce mode de culture, moins couteux, permet d'obtenir des racines de qualite superieure et de valeur commerciale beaucoup plus elevee. Des travaux d'amenagement forestier permettent d'assurer une intensite lumineuse adequate. La litiere de feuilles limite les risques de gel des racines. Un sol meuble, bien draine, possedant un pH legerement acide ou pres de la neutralite et une bonne teneur en calcium permet d'ameliorer le rendement et le taux de survie des plants. La protection des populations naturelles est cependant primordiale pour preserver une richesse genetique essentielle au succes futur de la production.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.827
Threshold uncertainty score0.981

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations16
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicGinseng Biological Effects and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207