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

<div class="htmlview paragraph">Due to its large proportion of edible biomass, beet (<i>Beta vulgaris</i>) 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<sup>−1</sup> atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, light intensities ranging from 400–600 μmol m<sup>−2</sup> s<sup>−1</sup> 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<sup>−2</sup>. 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<sup>−1</sup> 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<sup>−1</sup>. Water use efficiency under these same conditions was found to be 0.003 mol C mol<sup>−1</sup> H<sub>2</sub>O. 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.</div>

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.011
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
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