MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2296724147 · doi:10.5539/jas.v8n4p186

Plant Density Effect on Silage Yield of Maize Cultivars

2016· article· en· W2296724147 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mohammad Hossein Haddadi, Masoud Mohseni

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicCrop Yield and Soil Fertility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSilageRandomized block designMathematicsYield (engineering)AgronomyDry matterFactorial experimentPlant densityInteractionCultivarHybridBiologySowing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>In order to study of plant density effect on silage yield of new maize hybrids an experiment was conducted in factorial on the basis of randomized completely block design with four replications at agricultural research station in Qarakheil (Qaemshahr) in 2014 in Iran, after wheat harvesting. New hybrids are SC703 and SC705 that were compared with SC704. Four densities were 75,000, 85,000, 95,000 and 105,000 plant per hectar. Eeach plant planted in four rows with intera-row spacing of 75 cm. Silage yield, plant height, ear height, kernel number in ear row, kernel row number,dry silage yield, kernel, stem and leaves protein were measured. Result showed that SC704 had the highest silage yield with 70.96 t/ha. SC705 and SC703 had 64.67 and 60.22 t/ha silage yield. Density of 105,000 and 95,000 plant per hectar had higher silage yields in compare of other densities with 67.04 and 66.20 t/ha respectively. Result showed that SC704 had the highest dry silage yield with 43.19 t/ha. SC705 and SC703 had 38.69 and 36.75 t/ha dry silage yield respectively. Density of 105,000 and 95,000 plant per hectar had higher dry silage yields in compare of other densities with 40.67 and 40.55 t/ha respectively. With increasing of density, crude protein (in kernel, stem and leaves) decreased.</p>

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.675
Threshold uncertainty score0.144

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 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

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicCrop Yield and Soil FertilityFrench-language works237,207