MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2527869595 · doi:10.21273/hortsci.35.3.416b

153 Garden Performance of New Guinea Impatiens in Sun and Shade

2000· article· en· W2527869595 on OpenAlexaff
Robert Berghage, E. Jay Holcomb, A.H. Michael

Bibliographic record

VenueHortScience · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Physiology and Cultivation Studies
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImpatiensCultivarNew guineaHorticultureBiologyOrnamental plantBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The New Guinea Impatiens ( I. hawkeri Bull.) has become one of the most important spring crops for many growers. Rapid and continuous development of new and improved cultivars have lead to tremendous diversity in flower color, leaf color, plant size, and growth rate. Penn State has conducted large-scale garden evaluations of New Guinea Impatiens since the mid-1990s. Each cultivar is evaluated in both the sun and shade for uniformity, flowering, foliage, and overall growth and form. Ratings use a 1 to 5 scale with 1 being unacceptable, 2 = poor, 3 = fair, 4 = good, and 5 = excellent. Height, width, and flower size are measured in August. One hundred fourteen cultivars in 15 commercial series have been in the trials for two or more seasons. There are significant differences in the performance of cultivars and series in the trials. `Celebrette', `Paradise', `Pure Beauty', `Celebration', and `Riviera' were the top-performing series. Within each series there were outstanding cultivars and others that did not perform as well. Plants performed better in the shade than in the sun. The average rating for plants grown in the sun was 3.3 while the rating for shade grown plants was 3.8. New Guinea impatiens were shorter (11 vs. 12.3 cm), spread less (18.9 vs. 22.1 cm), and had smaller flowers (4.8 vs. 5.3 cm wide) in the sun than in the shade, respectively. There were no significant interactions between sun vs. shade, and cultivar or series.

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)0.000
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 score0.482
Threshold uncertainty score0.368

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.185 · 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

Citations0
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHortScienceSame topicPlant Physiology and Cultivation StudiesFrench-language works237,207