MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157793798 · doi:10.21273/hortsci.37.1.92

Growth, Development, and Yield of Head Lettuce Cultivated on Paper and Polyethylene Mulch

2002· article· en· W2157793798 on OpenAlexafffund
D. Brault, K.A. Stewart, Silvia Jenni

Bibliographic record

VenueHortScience · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Physiology and Cultivation Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
KeywordsMulchTransplantingLactucaHorticultureAgronomyPolyethyleneSowingGrowing seasonYield (engineering)BiologyEnvironmental scienceMathematicsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lettuce plants ( Lactuca sativa L. cv. Ithaca) were transplanted into organic soil and onto beige paper, black paper, and coextruded white/black polyethylene mulches in 1997 and 1998. A weeded bare ground plot was also tested. Transplanting in 1997 occurred in July under warm and dry conditions. Plants grown on mulch established better when the mean air temperature during the week after transplanting was 22.5 °C. The mortality rates of the bare ground control were 30%. All mulches significantly reduced plant mortality in 1997. In 1998, air temperature during the week after transplanting (June) was 14.6 °C. Plant mortality in 1998 was 1.3% for the control and 1.5% for the mulched plots. For both years, plants grown on mulched plots had higher relative growth rates than the control at the start of the season. Head fresh weight was 3.6 times (1997) and 1.2 times (1998) greater for lettuce grown on mulch compared with lettuce grown in a weeded control. Soil bulk density was lower under mulch than in the control plots in 1997.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.162 · 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 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

Citations52
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHortScienceSame topicPlant Physiology and Cultivation StudiesFrench-language works237,207