Bibliographic record
Abstract
Experiments started at College Station in 1949 show that the wet-pad exhaust fan system gives the most effective cooling of greenhouses for Texas conditions.This type of greenhouse cooling is practical.economical and efficient.Year-round production is possible, with more accurate timing, greater yields and higher quality.Installations made by commercial growers of florist and nursery crops in Texas show that the wet-pad exhaust fan system reduces labor costs and increases the quantity and quality of crops produced each year.Overall results are better market returns, improved working conditions, reduced water requirements and more consistent yields throughout the year.The use of this cooling system extended the production periods and improved the quality and yield of the following crops: chrysanthemums, geraniums, snapdragons, kalanchoes, begonias, hydrangeas, lilies, poinsettias, azaleas, gloxinias and foliage plants.The following crops also were produced successfully, were timed accurately and brought a high market return: calceolarias, cinerarias, stocks, primroses, carnations and tuberous-rooted begonias.Extensive use of the wet-pad exhaust fan system of greenhouse cooling throughout the United States and in many other areas of the world during the past 3 years has shown that it is practical in nearly every climate.Since the origination of this system, more than 25 million square feet of greenhouse area have bee.n cooled in various sections of the United States and Canada alone.Automatically controlled systems are the nearest approach to ideal growing conditions for greenhouse production with lower production costs.Cooling equipment properly used will make production easier and will give the grower more control over his crops.The system is economical to install and operate, and is considered a sound investment by all commercial growers who have installed it.Flower size has increased and flower color retention has been improved with the use of greenhouse cooling.Feeding programs have been increased with the use of cooling.More rapid and vigorous growth ofte.nhas required increased rates and frequency of fertilizer applications.Disease problems have been reduced by the conditions provided by this system.This type of cooling is efficient and practical in areas having high relative humidity.Proper management of the equipment in these areas has shown even greater gains than in some areas of low relative humidity.The effect on working morale of greenhouse employees has bee.n an important factor in improving quality as well as better climatic effects on crops.Greenhouse cooling is an advantage during the night as well as during the day.On many crops and in many areas, cool night temperatures are of greater importance than cool day temperatures.Examples of some eUects on florist crop production in Texas are: CHRYSANTHEMUMS-Production of year-round crops of high quality now possible with no delay in blooming or no distortion of flowers.CARNATIONS-Production in areas where this crop has' been tried unsuccessfully without cooling can now be practiced profitably with high quality production throughout the year.SNAPDRAGONS-Can now be produced on year-round basis in all areas with recently developed summer varieties.ASTERS-Can now be produced as a high quality crop on a year-round basis in the same manner as chrysanthemums.OTHERS-Better response and higher quality on all pot plant crops, including those considered as winter crops, such as poinsettias, lilies and hydrangeas.On the cover are potted chrysanthemums which flowered in August in a cooled greenhouse.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.208 | 0.001 |
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".