MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2471483825 · doi:10.21273/hortsci.40.3.756

Effect of Inflorescence Removal on Propagule Formation of Astilbe ×arendsii, Hemerocallis spp., and Hosta spp.

2005· article· en· W2471483825 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueHortScience · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFlowering Plant Growth and Cultivation
Canadian institutionsAcadian Seaplants (Canada)Nova Scotia Department of Agriculture
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInflorescencePropaguleBiologyBotanyHorticulture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Field experiments conducted in 2002 and 2003 evaluated the effects of timing of inflorescence removal on propagule formation, growth and development of Astilbe × arendsii , Hemerocallis spp. and Hosta spp . Four timings of inflorescence removal were tested: 1) no removal (control), 2) removal at inflorescence emergence, 3) removal at preflower, and 4) Removal at full flower. Propagule formation in Astilbe was not enhanced by inflorescence removal. Hemerocallis plants with their inflorescences removed at emergence produced 25% more divisions than plants with their inflorescences removed at preflower. For Hosta , plants with inflorescences removed at pre- and full flower produced respectively 40% and 53% more divisions than control plants. These results have economic implications for commercial bare-root production, which need to be verified on a larger field scale.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.281
Threshold uncertainty score0.139

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.199 · 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