MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408864547 · doi:10.1079/ejhs.2006/102813

Vegetative growth, cold acclimation, and dormancy as affected by temperature and photoperiod in six red raspberry ( <i>Rubus idaeus</i> L.) cultivars

2006· article· en· W4408864547 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Pauliina Palonen

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Horticultural Science · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBerry genetics and cultivation research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlowing a raspberryRubusphotoperiodismDormancyCultivarBiologyHorticultureAcclimatizationChilling requirementBotanyGermination

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary The effects of temperature (4 or 20°C) and photoperiod (9 or 18 h) on vegetative growth, cold acclimatization and induction of dormancy in six red raspberry ( R. idaeus ) cultivars (Jatsi, Maurin Makea, Muskoka, Ottawa, Preussen and Titan) were studied in two experiments (spring and autumn) in a greenhouse during 2000-01. Cane elongation and number of new nodes were more strongly affected by temperature than by photoperiod. Photoperiod had a very little effect on growth at 4°C, but short day reduced growth at 20°C. Cold hardiness of raspberry canes and buds was only affected by the temperature. In most cultivars, a deeper dormancy was induced at 20°C than at 4°C, and the effect of photoperiod was dependent on temperature. During the spring experiment, growth was more vigorous and the plants reacted more readily to changes in photoperiod than during the autumn experiment. However, greater cold hardiness and deeper dormancy were induced during the autumn experiment.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Horticultural ScienceSame topicBerry genetics and cultivation researchFrench-language works237,207