MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985230178 · doi:10.5539/ijb.v6n3p11

Relative Growth Rate of Six Soybean Genotypes Under Iron Toxicity Condition

2014· article· en· W1985230178 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Heru Kuswantoro

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Biology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Micronutrient Interactions and Effects
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenotypeHorticultureRhizosphereRelative growth rateBiologyCompletely randomized designDry weightFactorial experimentPlant growthAnimal scienceGrowth rateGeneMathematicsGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of the research was to study relative growth rate of six soybean genotypes under iron toxicity condition. The design was factorial design, with two factors; arranged in completely randomized design with three replications. The first factor was Fe concentration, consisted of two levels, i.e. (1) 0 ppm Fe and (2) 375 ppm Fe where after 7 days the acidity was not maintain at pH 3.5. The second factor was genotype, consisted of 6 genotypes, i.e. two tolerant genotypes (MLGG 0799 and MLGG 0492), three susceptible genotypes (MLGG 0915, MLGG 0768 and MLGG 0169) and one check swampland tolerant-variety (Lawit). The results showed that genotypes of MLGG 0799 and MLGG 0768 had higher rhizosphere pH levels than other genotypes. MLGG 0492 had potency to self recovery better than other genotypes based on relative growth rate (RGR) of root dry weight, plant height and plant dry weight. MLGG 0492 may have different mechanism than others because this genotype remained to have higher RGR, although it was unable to increase the rhizosphere pH. Under control and Fe treatment conditions, Lawit had no significant difference of RGR of plant dry weight to other susceptible genotypes.

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 score0.466
Threshold uncertainty score0.245

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations4
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of BiologySame topicPlant Micronutrient Interactions and EffectsFrench-language works237,207