MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045975548 · doi:10.4141/cjps09027

Fertilizer response for hybrid and open-pollinated canola and economic optimal nutrient levels

2010· article· en· W2045975548 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Elwin G. Smith, Bharat Mani Upadhyay, M. Lucila Favret, R. E. Karamanos

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicNitrogen and Sulfur Effects on Brassica
Canadian institutionsViTRAK Systems (Canada)Lethbridge CollegeAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCanolaAgronomyBrassicaFertilizerYield (engineering)NutrientPhosphorusCrop yieldBiologyOpen pollinationChemistryBotanyPollinationEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hybrid (HY) canola (Brassica napus L.) produces a higher seed yield than open-pollinated (OP) canola. While it is expected higher-yielding HY canola may require higher total available nutrients, especially nitrogen (N), the evidence is not conclusive. This study used canola yield data from several site-years and fertility experiments to determine whether HY and OP canola types require different rates of total available N (TAN) and total available phosphorus (TAP). The yield response of the two canola genotypes to TAP was the same, but for TAN the yield response was greater for HY canola. The quadratic yield response results were confirmed using three plateau equations. Optimal TAN for HY canola was higher than for OP canola. Soil test laboratories and producers growing HY canola need to modify N fertility for HY canola, compared with OP canola for which most of the current N fertilizer recommendations were developed. Key words: Economics, fertilizer, yield response, canola, hybrid, open-pollinated

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)0.001
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations17
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicNitrogen and Sulfur Effects on BrassicaFrench-language works237,207