Initial Growth of Peanut Cultivars at Presence of Different Sugarcane Straw Quantities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work was carried out to evaluate the effect of sugarcane straw on plants emergence and some characteristics of initial growth of peanut plants in boxes with soil as substrate. The treatments constituted by straw quantities of: 0, 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20 t ha-1 and the five cultivars tested were IAC 213, IAC 503, IAC 505, IAC 886 and IAC Tatu ST. The experiment was arranged in a completely randomized design, in a factorial arrangement of 6 x 5 with four replications. At 30 days after sowing were evaluated chlorophyll content, height, emergence of plants, number of leaves, total foliar area, foliar area per plant, leaf, stem, aerial part total and per plant dry mass. Data obtained were submitted to F in variance analysis test and means were compared with Tukey at p>0.05. The same data were padronized and analyzed by hierarchical cluster analysis utilizing as the similarity coefficient the simple Euclidian distance and as linkage method the Ward Method. The straw did not affect the cultivars growth studied and the straight cultivar IAC Tatu ST had the major initial growth if compared to the other.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".