Performance of Three PyrusPear Rootstocks in Northeastern NorthAmerica
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The adoption of high-density orchards over the past decades has resulted in significant improvements in yield and fruit quality. For pear, however, the lack of precocious rootstocks means that full production is often achieved many years after orchard establishment and remains one of the main challenges in pear production. In 2004, one coordinated rootstock field trial was established at two locations in the USA and Canada. The trials compared three Pyrus communisrootstocks: Old Home × Farmingdale (OHF) 97, OHF87 and Pyrodwarf, with 'Taylor's Gold Comice' and 'Concorde' pear as cultivars. After 12 years of growth, trees with OHF97 and OHF87 were the most vigorous under conventional management compared to Pyrodwarf. 'Taylor's Gold Comice' trees on Pyrodwarf rootstocks were 30% smaller than on OHF rootstocks. Cumulative yields were highest from 'Concorde' compared with 'Taylor's Gold Comice'. There were similar values regarding cumulative yield efficiency among the three rootstocks, and fruit size was generally smaller with Pyrodwarf, which also had the most suckers.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".