MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121069594 · doi:10.21273/hortsci.47.8.1182

Mammoth™ ‘Twilight Pink Daisy’ Garden Chrysanthemum

2012· article· en· W2121069594 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Neil O. Anderson, Esther Gesick, Peter D. Ascher, Steven Poppe, Shengrui Yao, David K. Wildung, Patricia L. Johnson, Vincent A. Fritz, Charlie Rohwer, Lee Klossner, Neal S. Eash, Barbara E. Liedl, Judith Reith-Rozelle

Bibliographic record

VenueHortScience · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShrubOrnamental plantBiologyBotanyHerbaceous plantHorticulturePerennial plantCultivarMammothMildew

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mammoth™ ‘Twilight Pink Daisy’ (U.S. Plant Patent 14,455; Canadian Plant Breeders’ Rights Certificate No. 4192) is an interspecific garden chrysanthemum cultivar, Chrysanthemum × hybridum Anderson (= Dendranthema × hybrida Anderson) with common names of hardy mum, chrysanthemum, and garden mum. It is a new and distinct form of shrub-type garden mums in the Mammoth™ series with rosy-pink ray florets, a dark “eye” color in the center of the disc florets, frost-tolerant flower petals, and self-pinching growth. This cultivar is a butterfly attractant in the garden. Mammoth™ ‘Twilight Pink Daisy’ is a winter-hardy herbaceous perennial in USDA Z3b–Z9 (Southeast)/Zone 10 (West) with its cushion growth form displaying extreme hybrid vigor, increasing in plant height from 0.46 m in its first year to a shrub of 0.76 to 1.22 m in the second year and thereafter with greater than 3000 leaves/plant. Flowering is prolific, covering the entire plant at full flowering with as many as greater than 3500 flowers in the second year. Chemical abbreviations: ethanol (EtOH), indole-3-butyric acid (IBA).

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.611
Threshold uncertainty score0.595

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.161 · 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

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHortScienceSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207