Bibliographic record
Abstract
Root suckers are vegetative shoots that develop from root buds and are generally considered a negative trait of a rootstock. Root sucker production for a given rootstock often varies with site. Published data from three peach and five apple multi-location NC-140 rootstock trials were used to determine if some sites are more prone to root sucker development than other sites. For each trial, the number of root suckers per site were ranked in ascending order and the correlations of the ranks for pairwise combinations of trials were evaluated with Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient. Although the associations were usually not significant at the 5% level, certain sites consistently had higher rankings. Sites with high rankings for peach root suckers also tended to have high rankings for apple root suckers. Sites with consistently high rankings included Utah, Pennsylvania, Kentucky and South Carolina. British Columbia and Ontario had consistently low rankings. Sites with high rankings in some trials and low rankings in other trials included North Carolina, New York, and Maryland. Although root sucker production is ultimately controlled by genetics, these analyses suggest that factors related to the site, such as soil conditions, environmental factors or orchard practices also influence the development of root 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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".