MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2173294393 · doi:10.6000/1927-5129.2015.11.73

Effect of Sowing Dates on Growth, Yield and Grain Quality of Hybrid Maize

2015· article· en· W2173294393 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
M. Buriro, Tofique Ahmed Bhutto, Allah Wadhayo Gandahi, ImranAli Kumbhar, Muhammad Usman Shar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Basic & Applied Sciences · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicCrop Yield and Soil Fertility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSowingRandomized block designAgronomyYield (engineering)CropGrain yieldMathematicsGrain qualitySplit plotStarchAgricultureBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study was conducted during 2013-14 at Student Farm, | department of Agronomy, Faculty of Crop Production, Sindh Agriculture University, Tandojam. The experiment was laid out in Randomized Complete Block Design (factorial) with three replications having net plot size 3x4m=(12m2). The effect of three sowing dates 25thOctober, 10th November and 25th November on three hybrid maize varieties Pioneer 1543, Syngenta 4841 and Monsanto DK-6142 was studied. Yield components and grain quality parameters such as plant height, number of cobs per plant, cob length, grains per cob, grain yield, protein, starch and oil content of maize varieties were significantly affected by different sowing dates. It was concluded from the finding of present research work that all quantity and quality traits were promising when the sowing was completed up to 25th October. Further delay of the sowing had negative effects on the performance of quantity and quality of maize. Hybrid maize variety Pioneer 1543 was promising variety which gave the grain yield more than 8312 kg ha-1.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 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

Citations23
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Basic & Applied SciencesSame topicCrop Yield and Soil FertilityFrench-language works237,207