MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101861880 · doi:10.5539/jas.v4n2p135

Cultivar and Growing Location Effects on White Lupin Immature Green Seeds

2011· article· en· W2101861880 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Harbans L. Bhardwaj, Anwar A. Hamama

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotanical Research and Chemistry
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Food and AgricultureU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsLupinusPoint of deliveryCultivarBiologyHectareCropFabaceaeLima beansYield (engineering)LegumeHorticultureLupinus angustifoliusAgronomyMediterranean climateBotanyPhaseolusAgriculture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mature white lupin (Lupinus albus L., Fabaceae) seeds have been used as food for over 3000 years around the Mediterranean and for as much as 6,000 years in the Andean highlands. However, no information is available about use of immature green lupin seeds as human food similar to that of vegetable soybean (Edamame) and green peas. We studied yield and protein content of green immature seeds of ten white lupin cultivars grown at two locations in Virginia over 2005-06 and 2006-07 crop seasons. Location effects were, generally, non-significant whereas cultivar effects were significant for pod yield and number of pods per hectare and non-significant for number of seeds per pod, shelling percent, and protein content whereas location effects were significant only for protein content. The mean values for pod yield (kg.ha-1), number of pods per hectare, number seeds per pod, shelling percent, and protein content of green immature white lupin seeds were 18098, 3402899, 4, 32, and 33, respectively. These results, when compared to literature values for Edamame and green peas, were encouraging and indicated that green immature white lupin seeds may have potential as human food.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations8
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicBotanical Research and ChemistryFrench-language works237,207