MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038019984 · doi:10.1080/00103620701879414

Critical Tissue Identification and Soil–Plant Nutrient Relationships in Dicer Carrot

2008· article· en· W2038019984 on OpenAlexafffund
F. Christine Pettipas, Rajasekaran R. Lada, C. D. Caldwell, P. R. Warman

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBanana Cultivation and Research
Canadian institutionsNova Scotia Department of Agriculture
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
KeywordsNutrientIdentification (biology)Soil nutrientsAgronomyPlant tissueBiologyBotanyEnvironmental scienceEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Fertility management has been a major concern for carrot growers because there has been little or no yield response to fertilizer application in various trials, even when fertilizer is based on soil test recommendations. Tissue testing may be an appropriate method to manage fertilizer applications to carrots. A greenhouse trial was conducted to identify critical tissue(s) at various growth stages that correlate with yield, establish relationships between nutrient concentrations of critical tissue(s) and nutrient concentrations in soil, and establish relationships among nutrient concentrations of critical tissue(s), nutrient concentrations in soil, and yield. Critical tissues varied for each nutrient studied at each growth stage. Correlations revealed significant relationships between nutrient concentrations of critical tissues and soil largely at active bulking but very few at initiation of bulking. Trend graphs revealed tissue zinc (Zn) concentration had the strongest relationship with yield. There was a significant difference in root fresh weight (RFW) with nitrogen (N) at 100 µg/g, significantly higher than at 0, 300, 350, and 400 µg/g. Greenhouse results suggest fertilizer with an N equivalent of 100 µg/g optimized yields.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.976

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.129
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations6
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunications in Soil Science and Plant AnalysisSame topicBanana Cultivation and ResearchFrench-language works237,207