MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132327803 · doi:10.5539/jas.v2n4p83

Influence of Sowing Date on Yields of Fresh-harvested Chickpea

2010· article· en· W2132327803 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hana Badani, Ishay Katzir, David Shemesh, G. Gera, Ran Hovav, Aharon Segev, Shmuel Galili

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetic and Environmental Crop Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSowingCultivarCropYield (engineering)AgronomyField experimentBiologyMathematicsHorticulture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chickpea is the main pulse crop in Israel, covering about 10 000 ha. In order to increase the cultivation area ofthis crop, efforts have been made to develop agro-techniques for the fresh (immature green) harvesting chickpea.The objective of this study was to determine the effects of five sowing dates on the fresh and dry yields of twoimportant Israeli chickpea cultivars, Zehavit and Bar. A field test conducted during the 2007-2008 winter seasonemployed a split-plot design, in which the first and the second factors were sowing date and cultivar,respectively. The fresh yield, percentage of waste, expected fresh yield, intermediate dried yield and final dryyield were calculated for each plot. Cultivar Zehavit was superior to cv. Bar in terms of all of these parameters,except final dry yield. Thus, cv. Zehavit is the better cultivar for production of fresh-harvested chickpea, due toits ability to produce high yields of fresh seed with a lower percentage of waste. Our results indicate that somechickpea cultivars can be commercialized for production of the fresh-harvested crop in semi-arid climates.

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)0.000
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 score0.751
Threshold uncertainty score0.203

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicGenetic and Environmental Crop StudiesFrench-language works237,207