MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2048060312 · doi:10.1080/15538362.2013.801664

Field Strategies for Rose Hip Production in Prince Edward Island

2013· article· en· W2048060312 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kevin Sanderson, Sherry Fillmore

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Fruit Science · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicHorticultural and Viticultural Research
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMulchFertilizerCuttingAgricultureLivestockAgronomyBiologyGeographyAgroforestryHorticultureForestryArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Market demand for rose hips from wild rose (Rosa spp.) plants is increasing as research reveals the valuable nutraceutical compounds that they contain. Roses grow wild throughout Prince Edward Island, Canada, and commercial production of rose hips is a recently new venture in this province. This study examined the long-term effects of several management practices on rose hip production in Prince Edward Island. Cuttings from native wild populations were planted in a replicated trial at the Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Crops and Livestock Research Centre, Harrington Research Farm in Harrington, Prince Edward Island, in 2004. Treatments consisted of in-row mulch (none, straw, or bark); fertility (none, compost, or fertilizer); and two inter-row (tilled or sod). Mulch, especially straw mulch, promoted overall plant size and yield, while fertilizer promoted plant height and yield. Inter-row tilling was best during the first years of growth, while inter-row sod led to increased plant height in later years. Results indicated that management practices may need to be adjusted as plant establishment proceeds in order to maintain healthy and productive plants for long-term commercial 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 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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.855
Threshold uncertainty score0.288

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Fruit ScienceSame topicHorticultural and Viticultural ResearchFrench-language works237,207