A new wood fibre substrate for hydroponic tomato and pepper crops
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of red cedar sawdust as a growing substrate for hydroponic tomato and pepper production was tested by comparison with yellow cedar sawdust and coir. In experiments with 14-d-old transplants, growth inhibition was observed in response to red cedar compared with yellow cedar sawdust. However, growth of plants transplanted at 28 d was better in red cedar than in yellow cedar, and those planted at 38 d were unaffected by sawdust type. Additionally, tomato and pepper plants grown to maturity under conditions similar to commercial production systems showed no negative effects of red cedar on fruit yield or quality when compared with plants grown in either yellow cedar or coir. There were also no differences in plants grown in either new or old red cedar sawdust. The data suggest that western red cedar should be considered as a viable substrate for production of greenhouse vegetable crops. Key words: Western red cedar, tomato, pepper, hydroponics, soilless culture, yellow cedar, coir, greenhouse
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".