MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2264039896

고랭지에서 화이트 클로버의 품종별 수량성과 생육특성

2003· article· ko· W2264039896 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
정종원, 김종근, 윤세형, 백봉현, 나기준, 이성철, 이주삼

Bibliographic record

VenueHan-guk choji josaryo hakoeji · 2003
Typearticle
Languageko
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture, Soil, Plant Science
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDry matterYield (engineering)HorticultureAltitude (triangle)White (mutation)AgronomyBiologyGeographyMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study was conducted to select the promising varieties of white clover(va.) California Ladino, Serninole, Sonja, Milo, Rinendel, Alberta and Sona at Daekwanryong branch(altitude 800m a.s,l.) and Namwon branch(altitude 450m a.s,l.) of National Livestock Research Institute. Leaf color of white clover was light green except for Ladino and Seminole, and leaf width was broad in others except for both varieties. Winter hardness of Seminole was the greatest with 85.2%. In Daekwanryong, dry matter yield of white clover was the highest with 5251kg/ha in Milo of all varieties. Also, dry matter yield of Ladino was the highest with 9405kg in Namwon. In Daekwanryong and Namwon, ADF content of Ladino was lowest with 24.3% and 42.7%, respectively. Also, NDF content of Sonja, Ladino and Rinendel was low when those compared with other varieties. Crude protein content of Seminole in Daekwanryong and Rinendel in Namwon was the highest with 22.2% and 28.4%, respectively. The results of this study indicated that Milo and California Ladino would be the promising varieties of white clover in Daekwanryong and in Namwon, respectively.

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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHan-guk choji josaryo hakoejiSame topicAgriculture, Soil, Plant ScienceFrench-language works237,207