MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056986921 · doi:10.3390/agronomy3010232

Production of Phaseolus vulgaris L. Genotypes with Tithonia diversifolia (Hemsl.) Gray and Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.

2013· article· en· W2056986921 on OpenAlexaff
Pedro Jorge-Mustonen, Maren Oelbermann, Donald Kass

Bibliographic record

VenueAgronomy · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLegume Nitrogen Fixing Symbiosis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTithoniaMulchPhaseolusAgronomyBiologyCajanusShootBiomass (ecology)HorticulturePhosphorusChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adding mulch biomass prior to crop seeding may improve production of tropical soil. We evaluated the response of four bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) genotypes to the addition of mulch biomass from Tithonia diversifolia (Hemsl.) Gray and Cajanus cajan L. Millsp. The addition of mulch did not result in significant differences (p < 0.05) in soil characteristics when compared to a control (no mulch addition) except for soil potassium (K), which was significantly greater (p < 0.05) in the T. diversifolia mulch biomass treatment. Bean yield and shoot biomass were significantly greater (p < 0.05) in the mulch biomass treatments compared to the control (no biomass added). In these treatments, Phosphorus (P)-efficient bean genotypes had a significantly greater (p < 0.05) yield and shoot biomass. Bean shoot nutrient concentrations were significantly different (p < 0.05) between mulch biomass treatments and between bean genotypes (P, K and magnesium (Mg) only). Phosphorus utilization and uptake efficiencies were significantly different (p < 0.05) between mulch biomass treatments and between bean genotypes. Bean root biomass was not significantly different (p < 0.05) between mulch biomass treatments, but was significantly different (p < 0.05) between bean genotypes. The number of root nodules was significantly greater (p < 0.05) in the T. diversifolia mulch biomass treatment and was significantly different between bean genotypes.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.453
Threshold uncertainty score0.932

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.171
Teacher spread0.164 · 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 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

Citations6
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAgronomySame topicLegume Nitrogen Fixing SymbiosisFrench-language works237,207