MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2521252376 · doi:10.1139/cjps-2015-0276

The performance of dayneutral strawberries differs between environments in Ontario

2016· article· en· W2521252376 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Toktam Taghavi, Adam Dale, Becky R. Hughes, J.W. Zandstra

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBerry genetics and cultivation research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFragariaBiologyEnvironmental scienceHorticulture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The strawberry production season can be extended in Ontario if plantings are protected from adverse weather conditions. At present, dayneutral cultivars developed in California are used for production, but are not well adapted to Ontario conditions. The objectives of this study were to determine suitable dayneutral cultivars for production throughout Ontario and to investigate how they react to high tunnel environments. Two sets of trials were run. The first set, planted in 2005 and harvested in 2005–2006, compared six dayneutral cultivars of strawberries in four environments. The second set, planted in 2010 and harvested in 2010–2011, compared five dayneutral cultivars grown in four environments. For the summer crops, high tunnels had higher yields in the cooler environment at New Liskeard and low yields in the warmer environment of Cedar Springs, when compared with outside plantings. In the spring, this trend was reversed. ‘Seascape’ and ‘Tribute’ performed consistently in all environments. ‘Albion’ and ‘Monterey’, although medium yielding with lower winter survival, had large fruit size and exceptional fruit quality. ‘Portola’, had large fruits and performed well, so could be of interest to farmers in Ontario. All the European cultivars tested had medium to small berries.

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 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)0.001
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 score0.571
Threshold uncertainty score0.985

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.171 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations10
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicBerry genetics and cultivation researchFrench-language works237,207