MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119824424 · doi:10.21273/hortsci.35.7.1234

Improving the Prediction of Processing Bean Maturity Based on the Growing-degree Day Approach

2000· article· en· W2119824424 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sylvie Jenni, Gaétan Bourgeois, Hélène Laurence, Geneviève Roy, Nicolas Tremblay

Bibliographic record

VenueHortScience · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant pathogens and resistance mechanisms
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrowing degree-dayCultivarPhenologySowingPhaseolusMaturity (psychological)Degree dayDegree (music)HorticultureGrowing seasonBase (topology)BiologyMathematicsBotanyAgronomyGeographyMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Four snap bean ( Phaseolus vulgaris L.) cultivars, Goldrush, Teseo, Labrador, and Flevoro, were grown in irrigated fields of southern Quebec between 1985 and 1998. Data on phenology collected from these fields were used to determine which base temperature would best predict time from sowing to maturity. The optimal base temperature was 0 °C for `Goldrush', `Teseo', and `Labrador' and 6.7 °C for `Flevoro'. Adjusting different base temperatures for intermediate developmental stages (emergence, flowering) did not improve the prediction model. All years for a given cultivar were then used to determine the base temperature with the lowest coefficient of variation (CV) for predicting the time from sowing to maturity. A common base temperature of 0 °C was selected for all cultivars, since `Flevoro' was not very sensitive to changes in base temperature. This method improved the prediction of maturity compared with the conventional computation growing-degree days (GDD) with a base of 10 °C. For the years and cultivars used in this study, calculating GDD with a base of 0 °C gave an overall prediction of maturity of 1.7, 1.5, 2.0, and 1.4 days based on average absolute differences, for `Flevoro', `Goldrush', `Teseo', and `Labrador', 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 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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.658
Threshold uncertainty score0.480

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.158 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations20
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHortScienceSame topicPlant pathogens and resistance mechanismsFrench-language works237,207