Bibliographic record
Abstract
Four tulip cultivars were introduced from Holland.Their botanical characteristics,phenological periods and growth in greenhouse were investigated and compared.The results showed that bulb height and flower size of 'Large Copper' were least,with longest white short soft hair on stem.Obvious characteristics of 'Toronto' were nacarat and lackluster membranous bulb scales,leaves with rufous stripe and base of perianth shape and colour.Obvious characteristic of 'Pink Impression' were taller plantlet,bigger flower,taller and wider leaves and edge of leaves with short hair.Germination period of tulip was about 20th December,Visible bud period was from the last ten days of February to the first ten days of March.Florescence was in the first twenty days ofmarch with about a week generally.But germination period of 'Large Copper' was in themiddle ten days of January.Florescence of 'Large Copper' was up to two weeks.The growth of 'Apricot Beauty' was fast during full blooming period.The rapid growth of Large 'Copper' was from visible bud to terminal of blooming,but which of 'Toronto' was from leaf-spread to beginning of blooming,and which of 'Pink Impression' was from the end of germination to leaf-spread period.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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.
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".