MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2313903681 · doi:10.4000/vertigo.16899

Effets des substrats à base de fanes de haricot et de feuilles de bananier sur la productivité des souches de Pleurotus ostreatus (P969 et HK51) sur étagère et gobetage

2016· article· fr· W2313903681 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jean MONDO MUBALAMA, Espoir Mukengere Bagula, Alphonse Balezi Zihalirwa, Gustave Mushagalusa Nachigera

Bibliographic record

VenueVertigO · 2016
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldMedicine
TopicFungal Biology and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtHumanities

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’objectif de la présente étude était de contribuer à la mise en place des pratiques mycicoles susceptibles d’accroitre la productivité du champignon en utilisant des matériaux localement accessibles. Ces différents substrats ont été découpés et trempés dans l’eau froide de robinet et égouttés pendant 24 h. Le son de riz y a été ajouté comme additif. Les sachets ont été remplis à raison de 1 kilogramme de substrat, puis pasteurisés à la vapeur dans un demi-fût pendant 2 h 30, ensuite refroidis pendant 24 h et enfin inoculés avec la culture-mère. Les sachets ont été incubés jusqu’à ce que le mycélium ait entièrement colonisé le substrat. À l’issu de l’étude, la technique de fructification et le type de substrat ont influencé le poids et le diamètre de pileus. Les meilleures moyennes en termes de poids ont été obtenues sur la technique de gobetage et sur le substrat à base de fanes d’haricot alors que les moyennes les plus faibles ont été obtenues sur l’étagère. Les effets dus aux souches n’ont pas été très significatifs.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations5
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVertigOSame topicFungal Biology and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207