MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2198129509

Effect of chemical and organic fertilizer levels on growth and yield of sweet sorghum

2007· article· en· W2198129509 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
S. V. Kagne, S. S. Wanjari, P.G. Chavan, V. G. Bavalgave

Bibliographic record

Venue˜The œIndian Journal of Crop Science/˜The œIndian journal of crop science · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBioenergy crop production and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSorghumWheat flourFood scienceGeneBiologyHigh proteinTriticum turgidumAgronomyGenetics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canada Western Red Spring (CWRS) wheat lines (Pasqua*2/ND643) containing the high protein genes of Triticum turgidum var. dicoccoides were derived from a cross between cv. Pasqua and the line ND643, which served as the source of the high protein T.t. dicoccoides genes. Polymerized Chain Reaction (PCR) based DNA test indicated that 50% of the progeny lines carried specific T.t. dicoccoides genes. Wheat lines were grown over a three year period at five test locations. Wheat lines containing the T.t. dicoccoldes high protein genes averaged 0.7–1.0% higher in grain and flour protein content compared to lines without the high protein genes. Absolute amounts of monomeric and polymeric protein increased proportionally with the increase in flour protein content. The proportion of monomeric and polymeric protein was independent of the test location and of the presence of the T.t. dicoccoides genes. Location affected grain and flour protein content and all measured quality parameters, whereas the major effect of the T.t. dicoccoides genes was on grain and flour protein content. The dough rheological and baking characteristics of wheat lines with the T.t. dicoccoides high protein genes were equivalent to CWRS wheat.

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)0.001
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue˜The œIndian Journal of Crop Science/˜The œIndian journal of crop scienceSame topicBioenergy crop production and managementFrench-language works237,207