MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2186468352 · doi:10.21273/hortsci.46.7.1049

UF 44-4: A Dwarf Red Lance-leaved Caladium Cultivar

2011· article· en· W2186468352 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zhanao Deng, Brent K. Harbaugh

Bibliographic record

VenueHortScience · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFlowering Plant Growth and Cultivation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPetiole (insect anatomy)CultivarBiologyHabitBotanyHorticultureGenus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cultivated caladiums (Caladium·hortulanum Birdsey) are valued for their bright colorful leaves (Evans et al., 1992). They can be broadly classified into three groups based on leaf shape: fancy, lance, and strap (Deng and Harbaugh, 2006; Wilfret, 1986). Fancy-leaved caladiums have heart-shaped leaves with three main veins, petiole attachment peltate, and they have two large basal lobes. Strap-leaved caladiums have narrow, linear leaves with one main vein and no obvious basal lobes. Lance leaves are intermediate between fancy and strap types with leaf blades that are broad sagittate to cordate– lanceolate. Basal lobes on different lanceleaved cultivars range from obvious to barely visible. In addition to leaf shape, lance-leaved caladiums differ from fancy-leaved caladiums in a number of plant, foliar, and tuber characteristics. Plants of lance-leaved caladiums are generally shorter and have thicker and denser leaves than fancy-leaved caladiums. Tubers are more branched, and main eyes are less dominant over secondary eyes compared with fancyleaved cultivars. De-eyeing (removal or destruction of the main eye or bud on tubers) is generally not necessary when forcing multibranched tubers of lance-leaved caladiums in containers, even in small pots (4 inches in diameter). With a compact growth habit, lance-leaved caladiums are very adaptable to different types and sizes of containers. Shorter and/or smaller pot plants are easier and less expensive to ship. Lance-leaved caladiums also appear to be more resilient to sunburns, wind damage, drought, and shading than fancy-leaved caladiums. These characteristics allow lance-leaved caladiums to perform well in the landscape when such stresses occur. The majority (greater than 95%) of caladium tubers used in the United States and abroad are produced in Florida. Florida growers supply as many as 50 to 70 million caladium tubers to greenhouse growers, nurseries, and homeowners throughout the United States and Canada and to some 40 countries in Europe and Asia. The majority of caladium cultivars in commercial production are the fancy-leaved type (Bell et al., 1998; Deng et al., 2005). However, during the past two or three decades, the demand for lance-leaved cultivars has increased steadily. For example, Florida growers planted greater than 50% more acres with lance-leaved cultivars in 2003 than in 1998 (Bell et al., 1998; Deng et al., 2005). Lance-leaved cultivars are expected to gain even greater popularity in the future. UF 44-4 is an attractive lance-leaved cultivar with a novel combination of leaf characteristics (bright red color, slightly undulate, and rounded leaf shape) (Figs. 1 and 2). In replicated field and greenhouse trials, it was comparable or superior to ‘Florida Red Ruffles’ and ‘Florida Sweetheart’ (the most popular red lance-leaved commercial cultivar and the most popular lance-leaved cultivar in all colors, respectively) in tuber yield potential, pot plant quality, and landscape performance. UF 44-4 is well suited for producing pot plants and hanging baskets, and de-eyeing is not required for forcing in smallor medium-sized containers (11.4 to 15.3 cm).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.154 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHortScienceSame topicFlowering Plant Growth and CultivationFrench-language works237,207