Judging and exhibiting standards for horticultural shows /
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has become increasingly evident that this document needed this new revision to make it more up-to-date and pertinent to horticultural competitions and exhibitions in Alberta.The committee's mandate was to update various categories and introduce new ones that are relevant to the needs of both judges and exhibitors.This revision tries to simplify the guidelines so that novice and beginners can interpret the guidelines with little difficulty, and to provide clarity for the more experienced judge and exhibitor.This revision reflects the market standard with new concepts, classes and corrections from experienced judges and exhibitors throughout the province.The main purpose of this document is to provide a user-friendly guide and reference to improve both the judging and the exhibiting of horticultural products at horticultural shows and fairs.In addition to the standards revisions, samples of classes for each category have been added to assist show committees in establishing or expanding their classes.New categories have been added to reflect the needs of Alberta judges and exhibitors.Appendix 1 outlines the standard classes that have been produced by the Alberta Horticultural Association to provide show conveners with a standard of classes for the major horticultural exhibits that occur in our province.Although not all classes have been mentioned, this new version of Judging Standards for Horticultural Shows is a great improvement over the previous version and is a reliable source of information.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".