MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005463118 · doi:10.4141/p03-013

Morphology, forage and seed yield of soybean cultivars of different maturity grown as a forage crop in Turkey

2004· article· en· W2005463118 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Suzan Altınok, Ilker Eroğdu, Istvan Rajcan

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoybean genetics and cultivation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCultivarForageAgronomyBiologyCropYield (engineering)Dry matter

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] has long been used as a forage crop but its morphological development and forage potential have not been studied extensively. A study was conducted using oilseed soybean cultivars of different maturity to determine their morphological development, forage yield, seed components and seed yield at the University of Ankara, Turkey. Five soybean cultivars OAC Salem (earliest), OAC Bayfield (midearly), OAC Eclipse (mid-early but later than OAC Bayfield), OAC Glencoe (full-season soybean) and SA.88 (late), were used in the study conducted in 2000 and 2001. The full-season cultivar OAC Glencoe was the tallest cultivar, and had the highest levels of fresh and dry matter yield and crude protein yield among soybean cultivars in both years. Therefore, OAC Glencoe is considered to be the most suitable soybean cultivar for forage production when intercropped with corn in Ankara region of Turkey. However, attention should be given to the earliest maturing cultivar OAC Salem that had the highest seed yield and better relative seed composition of all the cultivars. Key words: Forage, soybean, cultivar, morphology, development

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.853
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations10
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicSoybean genetics and cultivationFrench-language works237,207