MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007975383 · doi:10.5539/jas.v4n11p119

Effect of Different Dose and Application Methods of Paecilomyces lilacinus (Thom.) Samson against Root Knot Nematode, Meloidogyne incognita (Kofoidand White) Chitwood in Okra

2012· article· en· W2007975383 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Raja Kannan, R. Veeravel

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicNematode management and characterization studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeloidogyne incognitaShootSeedlingHorticultureRoot-knot nematodeBiologyNematode

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The biocontrol potential of Paecilomyces lilacinus was evaluated in field conditions in two seasons during 2005-2008 at Annamalainagar and Vallambadugai of Cuddalore district of Tamilnadu, India. In the field evaluation of different doses and application methods of P. lilacinus viz., seed treatment, seedling treatments, soil application treatments and the integration treatments produced mixed results on the growth of okra in both Annamalainagar and Vallambadugai. In two field trials of okra at two locations, shoot length, shoot weight and root length were significantly increased in mixture treatments compared to individual treatments, principally combination of seedling treatment (10g/l water) + soil application treatment (5.0 kg/acre) documented maximum shoot length (60 and 90 DAS), shoot weight (90 DAS) and root length (90 DAS) and they were positively correlated with fruit yield of okra.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations18
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicNematode management and characterization studiesFrench-language works237,207