MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978549355 · doi:10.1139/w06-112

Effect of the addition of nitrogen sources to cassava fiber and carbon-to-nitrogen ratios on <i>Agaricus brasiliensis</i> growth

2007· article· en· W1978549355 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Talita Rafaele D’Agostini Mantovani, Giani Andréa Linde, Nelson Barros Colauto

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Microbiology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFungal Biology and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversidade Paranaense
KeywordsAxenicNitrogenMyceliumAgaricus bisporusAmmonium sulfateUreaAmmoniumChemistryFood scienceAgaricusBotanyBiologyMushroomBiochemistryOrganic chemistryBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The same substratum formulation to grow Agaricus bisporus has been used to grow Agaricus brasiliensis since its culture started in Brazil. Despite being different species, many of the same rules have been used for composting or axenic cultivation when it comes to nitrogen content and source in the substrate. The aim of this study was to verify the mycelial growth of A. brasiliensis in different ammonium sulfate and (or) urea concentrations added to cassava fiber and different carbon-to-nitrogen (C:N) ratios to increase the efficiency of axenic cultivation. Two nitrogen sources (urea and (or) ammonium sulfate) added to cassava fiber were tested for the in vitro mycelial growth in different C:N ratios (ranging from 2.5:l to 50:l) in the dark at 28 degrees C. The radial mycelial growth was measured after 8 days of growth and recorded photographically at the end of the experiment. Nitrogen from urea enhanced fungal growth better than ammonium sulfate or any mixture of nitrogen. The best C:N ratios for fungal growth were from 10:l to 50:l; C:N ratios below 10:l inhibited fungal growth.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.265

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations26
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of MicrobiologySame topicFungal Biology and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207