MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056094114 · doi:10.1139/x03-285

Assessment of the frost hardiness of shoots of silver birch (<i>Betula pendula</i>) seedlings with and without controlled exposure to freezing

2004· article· en· W2056094114 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jaana Luoranen, Tapani Repo, Juha Lappi

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSeedling growth and survival studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShootHorticultureFrost (temperature)Betula pendulaHardiness (plants)SeedlingBotanyChemistryAnimal scienceBiologyMaterials scienceCultivar

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Frost hardiness (FH) of the shoots of silver birch (Betula pendula Roth) container seedlings was assessed by electrolyte leakage (EL), visual scoring of damage to the stem (SB), and whole-plant viability tests after controlled exposure to freezing during frost hardening. FH was calculated as the temperature causing a 50% or 10% increase in electrolyte leakage (ELT 50 , ELT 10 ), stem browning (SBT 50 , SBT 10 ), proportion of damaged seedlings (DT 50 , DT 10 ) or mortality (LT 50 , LT 10 ). Heterogeneous variances in error are considered in the estimation of the above indices by nonlinear regression of the logistic function. A method for computing the standard error of the estimated temperature causing 10% damage is described. The FH estimates by the most reliable method of assessment SBT 50 were then compared with electrical impedance parameters (EIS) and water contents (WC) measured without controlled exposure to freezing. Comparison of FH assessment methods showed that ELT 50 estimated the DT 10 , SBT 50 , and DT 50 well. The WC of the uppermost 10 cm of stem decreased in early autumn, when FH was above –10 °C. When the rapid increase in FH started, WC stabilized. Intracellular and extracellular resistance measured by EIS of unexposed stems correlated positively with FH.

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)0.002
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 score0.123
Threshold uncertainty score0.960

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations39
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicSeedling growth and survival studiesFrench-language works237,207