MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Eighth Year Performance of Honeycrisp Grafted on Dwarfing Rootstocks of the NC-140 Regional Apple Rootstock Trial

2018· report· en· W4214913174 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mark Rippke, D. R. F. Cochran, Lynn Schroeder

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Disease Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRootstockDwarfingHorticultureBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dwarfing rootstocks have the potential to increase profitability for tree-fruit growers by controlling tree size to allow more trees/acre. Although the initial installation cost can be 10 to 30 times greater than lower-density plantings, the long-range returns can far exceed the traditional plantings. However, to be viable as a commercial rootstock, dwarfing rootstocks must be adapted to a range of agro-climatic conditions, moderately disease resistant, high yielding, and produce quality fruit. To evaluate the adaptability and performance of new and promising apple rootstocks, an NC-140 regional rootstock trial was established in 2010 at 11 sites in the United States (CO, IA, IL, MA, MI, MN, NJ, NY, OH, UT, WI), two sites in Canada (BC, NS), and one site in Mexico (CH) with Honeycrisp apples serving as the test cultivar. Iowa has been evaluating 31 dwarfing rootstocks since 2010 at the ISU Horticulture Research Station, Ames, Iowa. The new selections are from the Cornell-Geneva breeding program (G., CG.), Russia (B.), and Germany (PiAu, Supp.), with M.26 EMLA, M.9 Pajam2, and M.9 T337 serving as industry standards. Tissue cultured propagated (TC) rootstocks of G.41, G.202, and G.935 were included for comparison with normal (N) stool bed propagated rootstocks. This report summarizes the results for the 2017 growing season.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.149
Threshold uncertainty score0.835

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPlant Disease Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207