MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Seleção de genótipos de batata-doce quanto à eficiência ao uso do fósforo em solos da região de cerrado

2013· article· en· W2283145487 on OpenAlexaff
Luziano Lopes da Silva, Márcio Antônio da Silveira, Rodrigo Ribeiro Fidélis, Rodrigo de Castro Tavares, Valeria Gomes Momenté, Ildon Rodrigues do Nascimento

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biotechnology and Biodiversity · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGrowth and nutrition in plants
Canadian institutionsSeneca Polytechnic
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIpomoeaRandomized block designPhosphorusGermplasmBiologySowingHuman fertilizationHorticultureNutrientAgronomyCompletely randomized designChemistryEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas (l.) Lam.) Lam) is a plant that produces tuberous root belonging to the family convolvulácea explored in practically all states of Brazil. The objective of this work was to select genotypes of the sweet potato as the efficiency of phosphorus use in cerrado soils with high and low availability of this nutrient. Were evaluated nine genotypes of sweet potato coming from the germplasm bank from the Federal University of the Tocantins, Brazil. The experimental design was in randomized block design with three replications being nine genotypes grown in two environments with low and high phosphorus availability, using doses of phosphorus fertilization from 20 and 120 kg ha-1 P2O5, applied at planting. To select genotypes suitable for environments proposed was used methodology for selection of the efficient use and response to phosphorus fertilization (efficiency and response). Genotype Amanda was classified as efficient and responsive, Barbara, Julia, Marcela and Carolina Vitoria as efficient, but not responsive and Livia, Duda, Ana Clara and Beatriz were classified as non-efficient, responsive but the absorption and utilization of phosphorus.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.225
Threshold uncertainty score0.358

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.177 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biotechnology and BiodiversitySame topicGrowth and nutrition in plantsFrench-language works237,207