MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2337572923 · doi:10.21273/hortsci.48.4.448

Optimal Growing Substrate pH for Five Sedum Species

2013· article· en· W2337572923 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueHortScience · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFlowering Plant Growth and Cultivation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphVineland Research and Innovation Centre
FundersMinistry of Agriculture, Food and Rural AffairsOntario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
KeywordsSedumPerliteSubstrate (aquarium)CrassulaceaeDry weightBotanyHorticultureBiologyChemistryEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To determine the optimal growing substrate pH values for Sedum plants, Sedum album , Sedum reflexum ‘Blue Spruce’, Sedum spurium ‘Dragon’s Blood’, Sedum hybridum ‘Immergrunchen’, and Sedum sexangulare were grown in containers using peatmoss and perlite-based substrates at five target pH levels (i.e., 4.5, 5.5, 6.5, 7.5, and 8.5). Optimal pH levels, calculated from dry weight regression models, were 6.32, 6.43, 5.71, 6.25, and 5.91 for S. album , S. reflexum , S. spurium , S. hybridum , and S. sexangulare , respectively, and 5.95 overall. Sedum spurium dry weight varied the most among pH treatments (i.e., 9.5 times greater at pH 6.3 vs. 8.3), whereas S. reflexum varied the least (i.e., 1.3 times greater at pH 6.3 vs. 4.4), indicating species-specific growth responses to growing substrate pH. These findings identified a narrow range of optimal growing substrate pH levels within a wider pH range tolerated by five Sedum spp. Therefore, by adjusting substrate pH to optimal levels, Sedum growth can be maximized.

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.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.907
Threshold uncertainty score0.327

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.175 · 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