MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2575036877 · doi:10.1139/cjps-2016-0271

Prohexadione-Ca and Ethephon Suppress Shoot Growth of Sweet Cherries (P. Avium)

2017· article· en· W2575036877 on OpenAlexaffvenue
John A. Cline

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Physiology and Cultivation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEthephonShootRootstockOrchardHorticulturePrunusCultivarBloomBiologyVegetative reproductionPlant growthBotanyEthylene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A 3-yr orchard study was conducted on Tehranivee, an advanced selection of sweet cherry [Prunus avium (L.) L.] on Mazzard and Gisela 6 rootstocks, to determine the efficacy of different prohexadione-calcium (P-Ca) and ethephon (ETH) treatments on vegetative growth. In experiment 1, cherry trees were treated with 123 or 246 mg L−1 P-Ca, which was sprayed on 16 and 30 d after full bloom (DAFB) or 16, 30, and 44 DAFB. In experiments 2 and 3, trees were treated before (−6 DAFB) and after (7 and 24 DAFB) bloom with P-Ca and rates similar to experiment 1, as well as with tank-mixed sprays of 123–246 mg L−1 P-Ca and 175 mg L−1 ETH applied at various timings. P-Ca alone or in combination with ETH decreased the vegetative shoot growth by up to 74% compared with the untreated control, but this varied by cultivar and year, as well as by plant growth regulator application rate, frequency, and timing. Lower rates of P-Ca at 123 mg L−1 were as effective as 246 mg L−1. No benefit was observed in applying P-Ca before bloom before active shoot growth had begun.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicPlant Physiology and Cultivation StudiesFrench-language works237,207