MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3203211682 · doi:10.1139/cjps-2020-0333

Hazelnut floral phenology in southern Ontario

2021· article· en· W3203211682 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Toktam Taghavi, Alireza Rahemi, Adam Dale, Dragan Galić, J. M. Kelly

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicHorticultural and Viticultural Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhenologyCultivarPollenBiologyPlant reproductive morphologyGrowing degree-dayPollinationBloomOrchardBotanyGrowing seasonHorticultureFructificationEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hazelnut (Corylus avellana L.) is a monoecious, dichogamous plant species that flowers in winter and early spring. In traditional hazelnut growing regions, hazelnut cultivars generally express protandry where the male flowers bloom before the female flowers. Nut set requires that compatible pollen be shed when the stigmas of the main cultivar are receptive. In this study, the floral phenology and date of leaf budbreak of five selections and 19 hazelnut cultivars from Europe and North America were observed over 4 yr in southern Ontario, and results were compared with cumulative growing degree days (GDD). In the continental climate of southern Ontario, most cultivars showed protogyny. Flowering dates varied over the years with pollination occurring in a period of 2–3 wk in early spring. These cultivars were classified into early, mid, and late blooming types. A GDD model was a better tool than average daily temperatures to predict the flowering dates of catkins and female flowers. Averaged over years, most of the cultivars in this study have a female bloom that is likely too early for the pollen shed by most of the other cultivars. This would likely impact yields in a commercial orchard. However, ‘Jefferson’, ‘Gene’, and ‘Epsilon’ have late females that are receptive when other cultivars are shedding pollen.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.769
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.193 · 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.

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

Citations9
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicHorticultural and Viticultural ResearchFrench-language works237,207