MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7100563217

Best Management Practices for Reducing Winter Injury in Grapevines – An Overview

2014· article· en· W7100563217 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicHorticultural and Viticultural Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVineyardVineCropBest practiceCrop managementProductivityWine grapeViticulturePruning
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Growing grapes in cool climates is a challenging task. Vineyard health and productivity is a function of the local site and climatic conditions during the growing season AND the dormant period. Successful vineyards are those that are productive and sustainable over multiple years (where sustainable is defined as producing an annual crop at economically viable levels for the grape grower each year). The potential for vine injury due to low temperatures during the dormant period adds another level of vine management to be undertaken. Not only must a vineyard operator manage the vines to produce a high quality crop based upon the weather conditions of the current growing season, practices must be employed to ensure that vines achieve optimum health to withstand cold winter temperatures during the dormant period. This best management practices manual for reducing winter injury in grapevines has been developed as a result of 5 years of research and practices in commercial vineyards across Ontario. The information is for existing vineyards and will provide guidance for preventing winter injury and suggested practices for responding to winter injury. The manual does not provide guidelines for assessing new vineyard locations.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.140
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHorticultural and Viticultural ResearchFrench-language works237,207