MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159303878 · doi:10.21273/hortsci.38.3.422

Frequency of Vascular Nodules in the Fruit of 'Gala' × 'Splendour' Hybrids and Other Apple Cultivars

2003· article· en· W2159303878 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ian McIvor, Alexander Lang, W.D. Lane, Paula E. Jameson

Bibliographic record

VenueHortScience · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Physiology and Cultivation Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCultivarHybridBiologyNodule (geology)HorticultureFleshMalusBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The new apple ( Malus × domestica Borkh.) cultivar Sciros™, resulting from a cross of 'Gala' with 'Splendour', is marketed internationally from New Zealand. A characteristic of this cultivar is the presence of dense, dark green or black nodules in the fruit cortex, located in close proximity to the five sepal vascular bundles. Nodules are visible as green spots beginning about 40 days after bloom and they continue to develop, reaching a length of up to 8 mm at fruit maturity, although there is considerable variation in their size. Large vascular nodules often develop dark brown centers and reduce the visual quality of the fruit flesh. The frequencies of vascular nodules in 61 'Gala' × 'Splendour' hybrids from New Zealand and British Columbia, Canada, were examined. These ranged from a mean of 0 to 12.1, depending on the hybrid. Thirteen hybrids were in the high frequency class (2.76-12.1), 28 in the low frequency (0.04-1.86), and 20 were without nodules. The mean nodule frequency in Sciros™ was 12.1 nodules per fruit, the highest of all hybrids examined. Our survey of 44 other cultivars confirmed the occurrence of vascular nodules in 'Gala' and 'Splendour', with mean vascular nodule frequency of 1.9 and 0.5 nodules per fruit, respectively. Nodules were also found in 'Newtown Pippin' (frequency 0.8), and in a 'Newtown Pippin' × 'Granny Smith' hybrid (frequency 0.1).

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 score0.577
Threshold uncertainty score0.110

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHortScienceSame topicPlant Physiology and Cultivation StudiesFrench-language works237,207