Induction and Release of Bud Dormancy in Woody Perennials: A Science Comes of Age
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The path to dormancy induction, maintenance, and release is a continuum and has been the topic of thousands of research articles to date.It would be an impossible task and indeed presumptuous of us to imagine that we could review all the research conducted on dormancy in the past century in this article.The multiple and complex nature of the dormancy phenomenon would require not one review but a series of in-depth reviews to cover the research on individual subdisciplines that come under the umbrella of dormancy.Its complexity and multiplicity of various subdisciplines stem from the fact that dormancy affects diverse plant structures (buds, seeds, bulbs, etc.) distinctly and that these dormant structures maintain distinct anatomical and physiological relations with neighboring parts.We, therefore, have chosen to discuss here only one, nevertheless highly significant, aspect of dormancy, i.e., bud dormancy in woody plants.As one reflects over nearly a century of work, it is apparent that, as with other disciplines, dormancy research has evolved as different aspects of bud dormancy (e.g., site of dormancy; photoperiod and environmental induction of dormancy; physiology of dormancy control, particularly phytohormones; chilling requirement-effective temperatures, bud differences, modification of chilling requirement by environment and/or cultural practices, models for calculating chilling requirement; dormancy-breaking chemicals and/or stress treatments) catching the fancy of horticulturists at different periods on the temporal curve of dormancy research.This research was extensively reviewed during the 1950s and 1960s (Doorenbos,1953
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".