MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165056977 · doi:10.1080/01904160701555689

Evaluation of the Dualex for the Assessment of Corn Nitrogen Status

2007· article· en· W2165056977 on OpenAlexaff
Nicolas Tremblay, Zhijie Wang, C. Bélec

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Plant Nutrition · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicCrop Yield and Soil Fertility
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersUniversity of California, Santa Cruz
KeywordsNitrogenAgronomyEnvironmental scienceZea maysChemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The Dualex is a new leaf-clip instrument that can be used to monitor corn nitrogen (N) status. It is based on the measurement of polyphenolics (Phen), which are secondary metabolites affected by stress factors. The purpose of this study was to compare Dualex to SPAD (chlorophyll meter), the latter having been used for several years in monitoring crop N status. As well, the interest of combining Dualex and SPAD information in Chl/DUAD (ratio of SPAD to Dualex reading on adaxial side), Chl/DUAB (ratio of SPAD to Dualex reading on abaxial side), and Chl/Phen (ratio of SPAD to the sum of DUAD and DUAB) ratios were considered. Significantly positive and negative correlations with corn leaf N concentration were found for SPAD and Dualex, respectively. Successful N status diagnosis could be achieved with either Dualex or SPAD for corn within 21 days after topdressing while the Dualex lost sensitivity at later stages. Dualex measurements could be limited to leaves abaxial side or adaxial side, instead of adaxial + abaxial sides, with no inconvenience. Among all parameters considered, the combined ratios with SPAD (Chl) and Dualex readings, Chl/DUAD, Chl/DUAB, and Chl/Phen were strongly related to applied N dose at all samplings dates, and found the most sensitive and robust through the season.

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)0.003
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 score0.865
Threshold uncertainty score0.088

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations62
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Plant NutritionSame topicCrop Yield and Soil FertilityFrench-language works237,207