MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2182130356 · doi:10.21273/hortsci.38.5.911

Induction and Release of Bud Dormancy in Woody Perennials: A Science Comes of Age

2003· article· en· W2182130356 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueHortScience · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Physiology and Cultivation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDormancyPerennial plantBiologyBotanyAnnual growth cycle of grapevinesHorticultureGerminationShoot

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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.

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 score0.898
Threshold uncertainty score0.279

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.212 · 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