MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Evaluation of Fibre Flax (<i>Linum usitatissimum</i> L.) Performance under Minimal and Zero Tillage in Eastern Canada

2004· article· en· W2122766006 on OpenAlexaffabout
S. J. Couture, Antonio DiTommaso, W. L. Asbil, A. K. Watson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agronomy and Crop Science · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgronomic Practices and Intercropping Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLoamTillageAgronomyLinumGrowing seasonCropping systemAnnual plantMathematicsConventional tillageBiologyCropSoil water

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The feasibility of producing fibre flax in minimum tillage or zero tillage (ZT) systems was investigated. The results were variable between the sites, which differed in soil type and previous cropping history. Tillage regime had no impact on fibre flax phenological development including number of days to emergence, days to flowering and days to harvest at either site. However, tillage regime had a significant effect on mean stem diameter, dry matter content and plant height at all three sampling dates at the sandy loam site, and a significant effect on mid‐season plant height at the clay site. At the sandy loam site, ZT plots had the highest populations of plants with the finest stem diameters, the lowest branching ratios, but the shortest plants by the end of the season. Overall, plant densities were greater, stem diameters thinner, and biomass production higher in the heavier soil of the clay site. These results indicate that under the growing conditions present in 1998, fibre flax can successfully be grown in minimum or ZT systems on different soil types in Eastern Canada. Moreover, the growth of fibre flax in these systems does not compromise the proportion of tall plants having thin stems and minimal branching, a critical quality parameter for fibre flax production.

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 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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.803
Threshold uncertainty score0.984

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations7
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agronomy and Crop ScienceSame topicAgronomic Practices and Intercropping SystemsFrench-language works237,207