MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997804494 · doi:10.1002/jsfa.3388

The effects of organic and conventional nutrient amendments on strawberry cultivation: Fruit yield and quality

2008· article· en· W1997804494 on OpenAlex
Jennifer C Hargreaves, Sina M. Adl, Philip R. Warman, H.P. Vasantha Rupasinghe

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Science of Food and Agriculture · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBerry genetics and cultivation research
Canadian institutionsNova Scotia Department of AgricultureDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSugarNutrientFertilizerOrganic fertilizerYield (engineering)Organic farmingAgronomyChemistryFood scienceHorticultureAgricultureBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract BACKGROUND: The nutrition of food is increasingly important to consumers. The popularity of organic food rests partly on the assumption that these products are healthier despite a lack of conclusive evidence. The effects of organic and inorganic fertilizer amendments on parameters of strawberry fruit quality, in terms of sugar, macro‐ and micro‐nutrients concentrations, and total antioxidant capacity were compared. RESULTS: Treatments did not affect sugar content or total antioxidant capacity. Inorganic fertilizer treatments increased S and Mn content of berries compared to organic treatments. The K and P content of berries differed among years. CONCLUSIONS: Organic amendments did not increase the fruit quality of strawberries compared to inorganic amendments. Copyright © 2008 Society of Chemical Industry

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.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.662
Threshold uncertainty score0.360

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.223 · 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