MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2563251621 · doi:10.21273/hortsci.41.4.1060b

(305) Plant Propagation Protocol for Gardeners of Ten Species Native to Southeast Alaska

2006· article· en· W2563251621 on OpenAlexaff
Robert F. Gorman, Julie Roller

Bibliographic record

VenueHortScience · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotany, Ecology, and Taxonomy Studies
Canadian institutionsCanadian Sport Centre Pacific
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNative plantRevegetationOrnamental plantIntroduced speciesViburnumBiologyInvasive speciesCuttingRubusGeographyAgroforestryBotanyEcological succession

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ten plant species native to southeast Alaska and surrounding regions were selected based on their value as ornamentals, food crops, disturbed site revegetation, and traditional Native American uses. Between 2003–05, seeds, cuttings, rhizomes, and bulbs from the 10 native plant species were collected in Sitka, Alaska, and propagated according to existing plant propagation protocol for each species. The most successful propagation method for each species was determined from field trials. This information was provided through workshops and Extension publications to gardeners in southeast Alaska and other parts of Alaska. The purpose of this project was to enhance growing local native plants as ornamentals, food crops, in disturbed site revegetation and for traditional Native American uses, particularly among native elders unable to collect these plants in the wild. A secondary purpose was to create a market for native plants in southeast Alaska and spawn a cadre of local cottage market gardeners to grow native plants for existing small nurseries. The 10 species selected included: Cornus canadensis, C. stolonifera, Empetrum nigrum, Fritillaria camschatcensis, Linnaea borealis, Oplopanax horridus, Rubus chamaemorus, Vaccinium parvifolium, Vaccinium ovalifolium, and Viburnum edule .

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.126

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0380.016

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHortScienceSame topicBotany, Ecology, and Taxonomy StudiesFrench-language works237,207