MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2188600042 · doi:10.21273/hortsci.37.1.95

Response of Plasticultured Bell Pepper to Staking, Irrigation Frequency, and Fertigated Nitrogen Rate

2002· article· en· W2188600042 on OpenAlexafffund
Pat Bowen, Brenda Frey

Bibliographic record

VenueHortScience · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicIrrigation Practices and Water Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
KeywordsFertigationIrrigationMulchDry matterDrip irrigationPepperYield (engineering)HorticultureAgronomyWater contentNitrogenEnvironmental scienceBiologyChemistryMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Effects of staking, drip irrigation frequency and fertigated N rate on dry matter partitioning and yield of bell peppers ( Capsicum annuum L.), grown using polyethylene mulch and mini-tunnels, were determined in two years. In the second year, which had higher early-season temperatures and more hours of direct sunlight, plants were larger, more productive and had larger fruit with thicker pericarps and a higher water content than in the first year. In both years, staked plants fertigated with 31.5 vs. 63 kg·ha -1 N produced higher yields due to increased fruit size and pericarp thickness. Compared with the response to monthly irrigation plus rainfall, additional irrigation applied when the soil moisture tension averaged below -25 and -20 kPa in the two years, respectively, affected yield only in the second year when it increased yield and the number of fruits produced by staked plants and decreased that of non-staked plants. Patterns of vegetative development and dry matter partitioning indicate that resources were remobilized from leaves to support fruit development.

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 score0.002
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations46
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHortScienceSame topicIrrigation Practices and Water ManagementFrench-language works237,207