MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069527764 · doi:10.1080/01904167.2012.653079

VEGETATIVE GROWTH, FRUIT WEIGHT, YIELD AND LEAF MINERAL CONTENT OF PLUM GROWN ON ACIDIC SOIL

2012· article· en· W2069527764 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Tomo Milošević, Nebojša Milošević, Ivan Glišić

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Plant Nutrition · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Physiology and Cultivation Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersScience and Engineering Research BoardYork UniversityMichigan State UniversityUniversity of Michigan
KeywordsCultivarPhosphorusHorticultureRootstockShootPotassiumMicronutrientVegetative reproductionYield (engineering)ChemistrySowingBiologyAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The experiment was established at a spacing of 4 m × 2 m. Ten plum cultivars were grafted on the vegetative rootstocks ‘Belosljiva’ (Prunus domestica L.). Until the fifth and the sixth year after planting, the vegetative growth, fruit weight (FW), and yield properties were affected by the cultivar. The FW was the highest in ‘Cacanska Rana’ (‘CRa’). ‘Cacanska Najbolja’ (‘CNa’) had the highest one-year-old shoot length (SL). ‘Stanley’ (‘STa’) was the most productive cultivar in 2006 and ‘Cacanska Rodna’ (‘CRo’) in 2007. Yield efficiency (YE) was the highest for ‘CRo’. Significant differences were observed among cultivars for leaf macronutrient [nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K), calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg)] and micronutrients [iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), zinc (Zn), boron (B)] levels at 120 days after fool bloom (DAFB). According to the ΣDOP index, ‘CRa’ and ‘STa’ showed the best balanced macronutrient and micronutrient values, respectively. The leaf Mn, Fe and N content was significantly correlated with SL, FW, and YE.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.219
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 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

Citations6
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Plant NutritionSame topicPlant Physiology and Cultivation StudiesFrench-language works237,207