MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069043569 · doi:10.2134/agronj2002.3370

Timothy Yield and Nutritive Value by the CATIMO Model

2002· article· en· W2069043569 on OpenAlexaffabout
Helge Bonesmo, Gilles Bélanger

Bibliographic record

VenueAgronomy Journal · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicCrop Yield and Soil Fertility
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForageDry matterLeaf area indexInterceptionYield (engineering)LimitingAgronomyGrowth modelDynamic simulation modelMathematicsModel validationCalibrationEnvironmental scienceAnimal scienceBiologyStatisticsEcologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mechanistic simulation models can assist in developing recommendations to optimize yield and nutritive value and in understanding the complex interaction among plant growth, nutritive value, and environmental conditions. In this paper, we present the growth and N concentration modules of an integrated model [CATIMO (Canadian Timothy Model)] of timothy (Phleum pratense L.) primary growth and nutritive value. This growth model features radiation interception and use efficiency, leaf and stem growth, leaf senescence, and a N function based on the critical N concentration of whole plants. Model parameters were calibrated to key model attributes: leaf area index (LAI); forage N concentration; and leaf, stem, and forage dry matter (DM) yields. Calibration measurements were taken weekly on timothy primary growth in four different years at one location (Fredericton, NB, Canada). Overall, the model satisfactorily fitted the measured values with root mean square errors of 32.8, 42.0, and 65.9 g m−2 leaf, stem, and forage DM yield, respectively. The model tended to underestimate stem DM yield at the end of the primary growth cycle, overestimate forage N concentration under nonlimiting N conditions, and underestimate N concentration under limiting N conditions. The model satisfactorily fitted LAI in 3 of 4 yr. Summary statistics of the calibration indicate a successful description of growth and development of the essential plant components required for modeling digestibility.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.392
Threshold uncertainty score0.780

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.166 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations53
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAgronomy JournalSame topicCrop Yield and Soil FertilityFrench-language works237,207