MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2344969974 · doi:10.17975/sfj-2015-011

The Effects of Zinc-Oxide Nanoparticles on Growth Parameters of Corn (SC704)

2015· article· en· W2344969974 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Melika Taheri, Hania Ataiei Qarache, Alimohammad Ataei Qarache, Mahdieh Yoosefi

Bibliographic record

VenueSTEM Fellowship Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNanoparticles: synthesis and applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsZincSoil waterDry matterNanoparticleIrrigationShootAgronomyMineralLeaf area indexCropMaterials scienceChemistryEnvironmental scienceNanotechnologyMetallurgySoil scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nanoparticles are widely used in various fields like medicine and agriculture. Plant growth is hindered in mineral poor soils. Supplementing mineral poor soils can improve plant growth. One role of nanoparticles in agriculture is stimulating crop growth. In this study, the three different physical forms of ZnO particles in irrigation water were used to supplement mineral poor soil. Their effect on the growth of single cross 704 (SC704) corn was investigated. We studied the effects of ZnO nanocolloid, ZnO nanoparticles, and micrometric ZnO particles. The concentration of nanoparticles in irrigation water was 2 ppm. The results show that the addition of all three ZnO particle types in irrigation water improved shoot dry matter and leaf area index. The best results came from the ZnO nanoparticle treatment which on average, increased the shoot dry matter and leaf area indexes by 63.8% and 69.7% respectively. Based on these results, we can conclude that zinc nanoparticles can improve corn growth and yield in mineral poor soils.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations103
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSTEM Fellowship JournalSame topicNanoparticles: synthesis and applicationsFrench-language works237,207