MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012736287 · doi:10.2135/cropsci2013.08.0568

Mineral Micronutrient Content of Cultivars of Field Pea, Chickpea, Common Bean, and Lentil Grown in Saskatchewan, Canada

2014· article· en· W2012736287 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Heather. Ray, Kirstin E. Bett, Bunyamin Tar’an, Albert Vandenberg, Dil Thavarajah, Thomas D. Warkentin

Bibliographic record

VenueCrop Science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Micronutrient Interactions and Effects
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersRural Development AdministrationSaskatchewan Pulse Growers
KeywordsPhaseolusCultivarSativumBiologyPisumAgronomyPhosphorusSeleniumCropRandomized block designHorticulturePotassiumMicronutrientZincPinto beanChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The mineral content of pulses grown in Saskatchewan, Canada, was examined for magnesium, potassium, iron, zinc, manganese, copper, selenium, and in some cases nickel and calcium. Eight to 18 cultivars of each of field pea (Pisum sativum), common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris), chickpea (Cicer arietinum), and lentil (Lens culinaris) were grown at several locations in southern Saskatchewan in 2005 and 2006 in randomized complete block designs with three replicates. Mineral content was examined by atomic absorption spectrometry. The pulses were found to contain significant proportions of the recommended daily allowance (RDA) for all the tested minerals except calcium. In many cases a 100 g (dry weight) portion of the crop provided over 50% of the RDA. For selenium, pulses grown in some locations provided 100% of the RDA. The effect of location was highly significant in most instances, while that of year and cultivar were generally less so. Pairwise differences among cultivars were examined by Tukey's test. Where possible, crops grown side by side were compared.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.217
Threshold uncertainty score0.437

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 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

Citations143
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCrop ScienceSame topicPlant Micronutrient Interactions and EffectsFrench-language works237,207