MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105227803 · doi:10.5539/jas.v5n8p1

Comparative Response of Cabbage to Irrigation in Southern Malawi

2013· article· en· W2105227803 on OpenAlex
Davie M. Kadyampakeni

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

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicIrrigation Practices and Water Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIrrigationRandomized block designBrassicaWater-use efficiencyMathematicsYield (engineering)AgronomyAnimal scienceHorticultureBiologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An experiment was conducted at Kasinthula and Masenjere in Chikwawa district in Malawi in the dry seasons (May through August) of 2006 and 2007 to evaluate yield response of cabbage (Brassica oleraceae) to irrigation frequency. The study was laid out in a randomized complete block design (RCBD) where three irrigation frequencies served as treatments: F1-Irrigated twice a week, F2-Irrigated once a week and F3-Irrigated once a fortnight. At Kasinthula, weight of marketable heads and water-use efficiency (WUE) were significantly different (P<0.05) across the irrigation frequencies. At Kasinthula and Masenjere, F1 resulted in highest yield of 32.9 and 23.0 t ha-1 in 2006 and 2007 seasons. There was a 50% and 25% reduction in yield in 2007 at Kasinthula and Masenjere Research sites. WUE peaked in F1 to 83.6 and 57.5 kg ha-1 mm-1 in 2006 and 2007 while lowest values were noted using F3 resulting in WUE of 57.9 and 39.4 kg ha-1 mm-1. Water productivity (WP) was significantly different across irrigation frequency (P<0.05). F3 resulted in the highest WP of 11.8 and 7.4 kg m-3 in 2006 and 2007, respectively. The lowest WP of 6.7 and 5.2 kg m-3 were observed in F1 in the two years. Comparing all the irrigation frequencies, F3 turns out to be the most effective water saving irrigation frequency suggesting that in the face of competing water needs and dwindling water resources, the longer duration F3 irrigation frequency is preferred to shorter duration ones. Where water is considered ample, F1 is recommended.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score0.230

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.233 · 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