280 Production of Carrots Suitable for Cut-and-peel Processing in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Production of carrots for cut-and-peel processing has increased to >400 ha in the past 5 years in the Holland/Bradford Marsh area (44°5' N, 79°35' W) of Ontario. To provide carrots best suited for the new industry, growers needed information on the best cultivars and production practices. Trials with cultivars from four seed companies were conducted on muck soil (60% organic matter, pH 6.0) for 3 years (1997-1999) and on mineral soil (5% organic matter, pH 7.2) for 2 years (1998-1999). Carrots were seeded on raised beds at three seeding rates—25, 40, and 55 per foot—at two or three seeding dates and were harvested at two or three dates at 15-day intervals. Plant stand was always less than the seeded rate because of hot, dry growing conditions during the years of the trials. Carrots were hand-harvested and assessed for total yield, marketable yield, oversized carrots (>0.75 in diam.), length, width, and uniformity. The seeding rate of 55 seeds/ft and harvest 100 to 110 days after seeding resulted in the highest yield of carrots suited for cut-and-peel processing. Cultivar HM03 consistently had the highest score for quality, but low yields. Other cultivars, such as `Indiana', `Caro Pride', and `Vita Treat', also had high scores for quality. Carrots grown on mineral soil were longer than those grown on muck soil; however, yields were higher for the muck-grown carrots.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".