MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2312062769

APPILCATION OF PHOSPHATE FERTILIZER AND HARVEST MANAGEMENT FOR IMPORTANT FENUGREEK (TRIGONELLA FOENUM-GRAECUM L.) SEED AND FORAGE YIELD IN A DARK BROWN SOIL ZONE OF CANADA

2008· article· en· W2312062769 on OpenAlexaffabout
Saikat Basu, S. N. Acharya, Jonathan Thomas

Bibliographic record

VenueKMITL-Science and Technology Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgronomic Practices and Intercropping Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrigonellaForageAgronomyLegumeCultivarFertilizerCropYield (engineering)BiologyHorticulture
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Fenugreek (Trigonella foenum-graecum L.) is an annual legume crop. Recently a new forage cultivar, Tristar, was released for use by western Canada producers. Experiments were conducted to determine appropriate cultural practices for maximizing forage and seed production in this crop. Annual variation in climate and soil moisture conditions significantly affected forage and seed yield of fenugreek. Application of phosphate fertilizer (@ 0, 30, 40, 50 and 60 kg/ha) also had a significant effect on forage and seed yield. For seed yield 40 to 50 kg/ha of phosphate application was effective while high forage yield was obtained when 50 to 60 kg/ha of phosphate was applied. Combining seed after swathing yielded significantly more seed in Tristar fenugreek than direct combining (p <0.001).  These experiments indicate that the uses of appropriate agronomic practices are necessary to maximize forage and seed production of this new crop cultivar in dark brown soil zones of the Canadian prairies.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.168
Threshold uncertainty score0.338

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.186 · 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

Citations13
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKMITL-Science and Technology JournalSame topicAgronomic Practices and Intercropping SystemsFrench-language works237,207