Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2003, ASHS celebrates its first 100 years of leadership in horticultural science with our Centennial Conference. The question of the day may be whether we will celebrate an ASHS bicentennial. Our next century will be even more challenging, scientifically and technically. Information exchanges and communications will be vital. The relevance of our scientifi c contributions will relate directly to the manner in which ASHS members interact with industry, with decision makers, and with all users of horticultural science. Jules Janick, in his Centennial “Tex” Frazier Lecture, chronicled horticulture and horticultural progress, with emphasis on our fi rst 100 years. Today I want you to focus with me on our next century: I will briefly address our rich history and will mention some of our horticultural science contributions that have led to major industry transformations in the past. I will recount for you some of the advances of your Society since we last met in Toronto. Then I will relate some of the challenges that I see for the second century of ASHS. Finally, I will suggest how we might deal with our future challenges by leveraging the science of horticulture ... and acknowledging the fact that “Everyone is a Horticulturist.” So, let’s make it easy for them to identify with the sources of the art and science of all things horticultural: ASHS. Our future with horticultural crops depends on our ability to build on progress already made. These challenges for ASHS must be addressed, and the solutions must be properly packaged and marketed to national and international decision makers in language they understand best. We have a lot to do. We could think of my Presidential Address as your ASHS President’s 2003 Report Card, including suggestions for making the grade in our second century.
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 | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.179 | 0.087 |
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".