MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091838319 · doi:10.4141/p01-008

Response of bean to applications of hydrophobic mineral particles

2002· article· en· W2091838319 on OpenAlex
Thomas Tworkoski, D. Michael Glenn, Gary J. Puterka

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAeolian processes and effects
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhaseolusPhotosynthesisShootDry weightParticle (ecology)Point of deliveryAgronomyCropParticle sizeBiologyChemistryBotanyHorticulture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Foliar applications of hydrophobic mineral particles can protect plants from some insects, but plant response to particle applications is not known. Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) plants were grown for 8 wk in a greenhouse and the shoots were sprayed weekly with small-diameter hydrophobic mineral particles. Photosynthesis was similar in particle-treated and control bean plants over a photosynthetic photon flux (PPF) range from 0 to 1548 µmol m –2 s –1 . The shoot-to-root dry weight ratio was 56% greater and pod weight was 20% lower in particle-treated plants than control plants, suggesting that particle films may alter dry weight partitioning of plants. In bean, particle residues of 2.71 mg cm –2 leaf area altered plant development without affecting photosynthesis. Key words: Phaseolus vulgaris, crop protection, photosynthesis, dry weight distribution, kaolin

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.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.141
Threshold uncertainty score0.944

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.184 · 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