MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2905582319 · doi:10.31421/ijhs/17/1-2./937

New sweet cherry cultivars in intensive plantings

2011· article· en· W2905582319 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Z. Szabó, Ervin Farkas, M. Soltész, Cs. Fieszl, G. Balázs, J. Nyéki

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Horticultural Science · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Physiology and Cultivation Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRootstockPruningDwarfingSowingHorticultureCultivarYield (engineering)ShootBiologyBotanyVegetative reproduction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study took place in the largest sweet cherry plantation in West Hungary. The purpose has been the identification of those varieties, which will be suitable for intense cultivation, early fruiting and excellent fruit quality, moreover, the selection of the optimal phytotechnical procedures. At the same time, scion-rootstock combinations have been tested also from the point of view of growing intensity and fruiting in high-density plantation. The dense planting is induced to start fruiting early and yield regularly by special methods.Yielding was stimulated by maintaining the balance of vegetative-generative growth by binding the shoots, by summer pruning, by cuts on the trunk and root pruning. Best experiences have been found in yield and quality in the following varieties: Canada Giant, Carmen, Firm Red, Giant Red, Katalin, Kordia, Regina. Dense planting has been feasible also on vigorous rootstock, like P. mahaleb. Dwarfing rootstocks like P-HL-A, Gisela 6, accelerate the formation of flower buds and yielding earlier with fruits of adequate size. ‘Firm Red’ and ‘Giant Red’ excelled with their large fruit (>27 mm diameter) in all combinations, thus being promising under Hungarian conditions.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.948
Threshold uncertainty score0.213

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations3
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Horticultural ScienceSame topicPlant Physiology and Cultivation StudiesFrench-language works237,207