MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2365753581

Reports of Fine Gyaca County Walnut Resources in Tibet

2010· article· en· W2365753581 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueNorthern Horticulture · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNuts composition and effects
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGermplasmGeographyJuglansDistribution (mathematics)ChinaSampling (signal processing)Elevation (ballistics)HorticultureBiologyArchaeologyMathematicsEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aimed for the main producing areas of Tibet walnut Gyaca County fine walnut plant investigation was incomplete,the information was unavailable in Canadian County,a more detailed investigation was done for the distribution of the Walnut fine check.Survey results were collected to the appearance of butter 36 walnut and other good quality and taste varieties(plant),breaking the original recorded 11 excellent plant that was recorded in China Fruit Chi.Walnut roll, and detailed records the local name of every single strains,identified the specific location of the distribution,such as longitude and latitude,elevation and locations of the towns and villages,while sampling determined the basic physical properties of the nut.Enriched in Tibet walnut germplasm resources.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.332
Threshold uncertainty score0.707

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.218 · 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