MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Efeito da aplicação foliar de biofertilizantes, bioestimulantes e micronutrientes na cultura do tomateiro (Lycopersicon esculetum Mill.)

2003· article· pt· W2166181916 on OpenAlexaff
Erico Sengik, Maurício Tochiyuki Tanaka, Humberto da Silva Santos, Celso Habel Júnior, Carlos Alberto Scapim, Marcus Vinícius Kvitschal, Isabel Cristina Arquez

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Scientiarum Agronomy · 2003
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGrowth and nutrition in plants
Canadian institutionsNutrition International
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLycopersiconBiofertilizerHorticultureCompletely randomized designMathematicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this work was to evaluate the effect of foliar biofertilizer application and biostimulants, besides their combination in the growth and in the number of fruits and racemo of tomato culture, cv. Jumbo (Lycopersicon esculetum Mill.). The experiment was carried out in the county of Marialva, north of Paraná, in area of Terra Roxa Estruturada Eutrófica. The experimental design used was randomized completed with four replicates, as each plot was composed by two lines of plants driven by vertical tutor. Fourteen days after the transplant 10 pulverizations were accomplished with weekly intervals. The treatments were: Aminon- 25, Microfol, Biofertilizers without micronutritious, Biofertilizers plus micronutritious, Aminon-25 +microfol, as the treatment without any product to check. The treatments that contained micronutritious, increased the number of fruits for plant, not differing statistically from each other, however. Regarding to the racemo number, the treatments that contained biostimulants were the best ones.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.334
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.211 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations6
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa Scientiarum AgronomySame topicGrowth and nutrition in plantsFrench-language works237,207