MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016595099 · doi:10.4141/p00-058

Nutrient concentrations and nutritive value of field pea (<i>Pisum sativum</i> L.) straw in south central Alberta

2001· article· en· W2016595099 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Mark A. Olson, Rong‐Cai Yang, S. F. Blade

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgronomic Practices and Intercropping Systems
Canadian institutionsAgriculture Food and Rural Development
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSativumStrawField peaNutrientAgronomyPisumBiologyCropComposition (language)Animal scienceBotanyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The development of field pea as a major specialty crop in western Canada has led to questions regarding the nutritive value of its straw component. The objective of this study was to examine the nutrient composition of field pea straw collected from south central Alberta variety trials. Our analysis focused on four varieties grown on four locations for the period between 1995 and 1997. Five nutrients were examined: CP, Ca, P, ADF and NDF. There were significant year × location interaction effects for concentrations of all five nutrients. Location-to-location differences were considerably inconsistent across the years. The environmental variation in nutrients of pea straw requires that the optimal strategy of managing the pea straw (particularly using it as part of cattle feed) be based on an extensive sampling of the straw over diverse environments rather than on the average value. Key words: Nutritive composition, field pea straw, environmental variation, Pisum sativum L.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.963

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Citations2
Published2001
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicAgronomic Practices and Intercropping SystemsFrench-language works237,207