MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2349732787

Effects of Different Carbon Dioxide Concentration and Cultivation Methods on Growth of Tomato

2014· article· en· W2349732787 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueNorthern Horticulture · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGreenhouse Technology and Climate Control
Canadian institutionsScience North
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarbon dioxideAnthesisIrrigationGreenhouseNutrientAgronomyEnvironmental scienceYield (engineering)Dry matterHorticultureBiologyMaterials scienceCultivarEcology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Taking tomato‘Shali'as material,through applying carbon dioxide(CO2)in solar greenhouse,the effect of three different cultivation methods that were negative pressure irrigation with supplying nutrient solution,matrix cultivation and soil cultivation on growth,yield and nutrient use efficiency were compared.The results showed that,higher carbon dioxide concentration could increase plant height,stem diameter and leaf number of tomato,improve SPAD of tomato leaf and promote anthesis and mature period ahead.Besides,it increased dry matter content and yield of tomato,reduced rootshoot and improved nutrient solution using efficiently.In terms of cultivation method,tomato under soil cultivation was good in early stage compared with tomato under matrix cultivation and negative pressure irrigation,but the later two cultivation exceeded in later period.Moreover,there were no significant differences between matrix cultivation and negative pressure irrigation during the whole growth period.

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 score0.425
Threshold uncertainty score0.146

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.210 · 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