MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099191014 · doi:10.21273/horttech.15.2.0399

Single-centered and Super Colossal Bulbs from Yellow Onion Cultivars

2005· article· en· W2099191014 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Clinton C. Shock, Erik B.G. Feibert, Lamont D. Saunders

Bibliographic record

VenueHortTechnology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGarlic and Onion Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCultivarBulbAcreYield (engineering)HorticultureAlliumBiologyMathematicsAgronomyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Onion ( Allium cepa ) cultivars for commercial production in eastern Oregon and southwestern Idaho are evaluated annually in replicated yield trials conducted at the Malheur Experiment Station, Oregon State University, Ontario. Market demand has progressively called for larger bulb size and bulbs with single centers. At harvest onions were evaluated for maturity, number of bolters, and single centeredness. Cultivars showed a wide range of bulbs with only one growing point or “bullet” single centers, ranging from 1% to 57% in 2000, from 7% to 70% in 2001, and from 1% to 74% in 2002. The percentages of bulbs functionally single-centered for processing uses ranged from 18% to 88% in 2000, from 24.7% to 91.3% in 2001, and from 14.4% to 92% in 2002. Bulb yield and market grade were evaluated out of storage. Marketable yield after 4 months of storage varied significantly by cultivar from 643 to 1196 cwt/acre (72.1 to 134.1 Mg·ha –1 ) in 2000, from 538 to 980 cwt/acre (60.3 to 109.8 Mg·ha –1 ) in 2001, and from 583 to 1119 cwt/acre (65.3 to125.4 Mg·ha –1 ) in 2002. Averaging over cultivars, super colossal bulb size averaged 26%, 14%, and 10% in 2000, 2001, and 2002, respectively.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.178 · 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

Citations13
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHortTechnologySame topicGarlic and Onion StudiesFrench-language works237,207