Flower Phenology, Ovum Longevity, Effective Pollination Period and Growth Curve of Hawthorn Fruit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The phenology of hawthorn flower has been examined during 1388 and 1389. The begging and ending date of its flowering, the duration of flowers burst in a corymb, the percent of corymbs with secondary corymbs, the average of flower numbers in each corymb and the average of flower stamen and style were all evaluated. In addition, the ovum Longevity, the pollination striking period of hawthorn were examined with sampling of flowers (two, three, seven and nine days after pollination) and microscopic observations of samples took place. In this study, the ovum Longevity and the pollination period of Hawthorn are respectively 9 and 4 days. It is showed that after pollination, the pollen tube would start growing downward to the bottom of style. The Transparency and brightness of ovum would be the sign of oldness and ending of its action. In order to specify the growth of Hawthorn fruits and drawing the growth curve, the fruit diameter were measured with calliper during the specified times of 3, 6.9,12, and 17 weeks after the flowering completion. The growth curves of flowers were drawn and in contrary to the fruits with seeds, it was like stone fruits and in the form of double sigmoid. The highest level of fruit growth has been observed through the time of three to six weeks after the end of flowering.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".