MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2347624004

Variance Analysis of Grain Fe and Zn Concentrations in Nine Beer Barley Cultivars

2009· article· en· W2347624004 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Zengping Ning

Bibliographic record

VenueSeed · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicHorticultural and Viticultural Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCultivarTiller (botany)HorticultureAnimal scienceMathematicsAgronomyChemistryBiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Investigation of cereal concentration of mineral elements including the grain iron and zinc concentrations (GFeC and GZnC) of barley is very important for human health.Nine beer barley cultivars introduced from five provinces in China were grown in the Center of Guizhou province (Huaxi in Guiyang),and then the GFeC and GZnC of these barley cultivars were detected by inductively coupled plasma mass spectroscopy (ICP-MS) and optical emission spectrometry (ICP-OES),respectively.The obtained results showed that there were significant differences of GFeC and GZnC among the varieties by one way ANOVA (p0.000 1).GFeC and GZnC among the nine cultivars varied from 36.45 to 140.85 mg/kg and 47.99 to 98.69 mg/kg.The highest varieties of GFeC and GZnC were Yunpi 6 and Supi 4,while the lowest ones both were Ganpi 3.According to Spearman's Rho Correlation analysis,the GZnC had significant negative correlations with booting stage,heading stage,maturity stage,flag leaf length,negative area,plant height and spike length,and the GZnC displayed significant negative correlations with flag leaf width,spikelets per main spike,and positive correlations with number of tiller per plant and availability number of tiller,respectively.The results provided the valuable data for choosing both high yield and quality beer barley cultivars for future improvement.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.923
Threshold uncertainty score0.122

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSeedSame topicHorticultural and Viticultural ResearchFrench-language works237,207