MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2048868322 · doi:10.4271/2004-01-2435

Carbon Gain, Water Use and Nutrient Uptake Dynamics of Beet (<italic>Beta vulgaris</italic>) Grown in Controlled Environments

2004· article· en· W2048868322 on OpenAlexaff
Geoffrey Waters, Youbin Zheng, Danuta Gidzinski, Michael Dixon

Bibliographic record

VenueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper series · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRabbits: Nutrition, Reproduction, Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNutrientBETA (programming language)Carbon fibersEnvironmental scienceAgronomyComputer scienceBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to its large proportion of edible biomass, beet (Beta vulgaris) has high potential as a candidate crop for bioregenerative life support systems. This paper summarizes data collected for beet under batch and staged stand culture in closed environment chambers. Full stand trials were conducted under the following conditions: 1000 μL L−1 atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, light intensities ranging from 400–600 μmol m−2 s−1 PAR with a 14 hour photoperiod, 73% ± 5% relative humidity, a 26/20 °C day/night temperature regime and a fixed planting density of 17.6 plants m−2. For batch planted stands, total edible yield was determined to be 28.3 g dry weight basis (dwb) with a 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of [24.7, 31.8] g plant−1 with a harvest index of 94%. Under similar conditions, yield for staged beet stands was 31.4 g dwb with a 95% CI of [24.54, 38.31] g plant−1. Water use efficiency under these same conditions was found to be 0.003 mol C mol−1 H2O. Relative nitrate, ammonium, phosphate and potassium uptake rate averaged 0.11. Data indicate that a square meter of beet in production would supply roughly 2% of the daily air revitalization requirement of a single crew member.

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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations1
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper seriesSame topicRabbits: Nutrition, Reproduction, HealthFrench-language works237,207