MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2050407014 · doi:10.4141/p06-130

The impact of kaolin clay sprays on leaf gas exchange of Ginger Gold apple trees in New Brunswick

2006· article· en· W2050407014 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Jean-Pierre Privé, L.F. Russell, A. LeBlanc

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTranspirationOrchardStomatal conductancePhotosynthesisHorticultureChemistryBiologyBotanyAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A field trial was conducted over two growing seasons in a Ginger Gold apple orchard in Bouctouche, New Brunswick, Canada to examine the impact of Surround (95% kaolin clay) on leaf gas exchange [net photosynthesis (Pn), stomatal conductance (gs), intercellular CO2 (Ci) and transpiration (E)]. In 2004, a greater rate of Pn and gs was achieved at the higher than at the lower frequency of Surround applications. This was particularly notable at leaf temperatures exceeding 35°C. In 2005, no significant (P ≤ 0.05) differences among leaf residue groupings [Trace (< 0.5 g m-2), Low (0.5 to 2 g m-2), and High (≥ 2 g m-2)] were found for the four leaf gas exchange parameters at leaf temperatures ranging from 25 to 40°C. It would appear that under New Brunswick commercial orchard conditions, the application of Surround favours or has no effect on leaf gas exchange. Key words: Surround, particle film, leaf physiology, photosynthesis, stomatal conductance, intercellular CO2, transpiration

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 score0.612
Threshold uncertainty score0.772

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations5
Published2006
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant Science→Same topicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics→French-language works237,207→