MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151344703

EVALUATION OF SWEET CHERRY CULTIVARS RECENTLY INTRODUCED INTO BULGARIA COMPARED WITH TWO BULGARIAN CULTIVARS

2004· article· en· W2151344703 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
V. Lichev, G. Govedarov, S.G. Tabakov, A. Yordanov

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fruit and Ornamental Plant Research · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Physiology and Cultivation Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCultivarHorticultureRootstockBiologyBotanyMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

From 1 998 t o 2 00 3, e ight s weet c herry v arieties w ere e valuated i n t erms o f vigor, productivity and fruit weight. The varieties tested were: ‘Celeste’, ‘Vanspur’, ‘Lapins’, ‘Kordia’, ‘Regina’, 13­S27­17, ‘Bigarreau Burlat’ and ‘Van’. ‘Celeste’, ‘Vanspur’, ‘Lapins’, ‘Kordia’ and ‘Regina’ are recently introduced foreign cultivars. 13­S27­17 is a hybrid developed at the Summerland Experimental Station in Canada. ‘Bigarreau Burlat’ and ‘Van’ are cultivars commonly grown in Bulgaria. Six o r s even t re es o f e ach v arie ty, g rafted o n P 1 ( Prunus mahaleb seedling) rootstock, were planted 4.5 x 6.0 meters apart. Each tree was trained with a central leader and a free­growing crown. Gravity irrigation was employed. Growth in ‘Kordia’ and ‘Regina’ was vigorous, and growth in the other varieties was moderate or moderate­to­vigorous. The most precocious variety was ‘Vanspur’. The m ost p roduct ive v ariety w as ‘Van’ , f ollowed b y ‘Vanspur’ , 1 3­S27­17, ‘Kordia’, ‘Lapins’, ‘Celeste’, ‘Bigarreau Burlat’ and ‘Regina’. ‘Regina’ blossomed very late. In 2003, ‘Regina’ blossomed very rapidly under adverse weather conditions. The air temperature was over 25°C, which reduced blossom and fruit set. The varieties with the largest fruits were ‘Regina’ and ‘Celeste’. The variety most susceptible to fruit skin cracking was 13­S27­17.

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)0.003
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 score0.920
Threshold uncertainty score0.241

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations9
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fruit and Ornamental Plant ResearchSame topicPlant Physiology and Cultivation StudiesFrench-language works237,207