Early topping: an alternative to standard topping increases yield in cannabis production
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In commercial settings, cannabis is generally propagated through cuttings, a process referred in the industry as cloning. Some producers perform either topping or fimming to trigger the production of axillary shoots, which will enhance the number of flowers per plants and thus increase the yield of the cannabis plants. Topping or fimming is generally performed after the cuttings have been transferred to rooting media for two weeks. We have tested a new method to increase the shoot number per plant. The modification of the standard topping method consist of performing the topping on mother plants, prior to taking the cuttings for cloning, and the cuttings are taken one week after the topping is performed. The resulting plantlets develop axillary shoots much faster and the time of production from cuttings to harvesting is decreased by 7-10 days. The method proposed herein requires minimal adjustment to the existing workflow and the plants produce as much as when standard topping is performed. Moreover, this method cuts backs on the production time and nearly two weeks are saved compared to the standard topping procedure since the plantlets do not need to recover after topping. Application of this new procedure results in faster production time and ultimately enhanced productivity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".