MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2367871295

Productive Evaluation on Different Oat(Avena sativa) Varieties in Alpine Region of Tianzhu

2001· article· en· W2367871295 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dong Shi

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Agrestia Sinica · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgronomic Practices and Intercropping Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAvenaDry matterForagePalatabilityAgronomyGrasslandBiologyYield (engineering)Productivity
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Comparison study on oat varieties was conducted at Tianzhu Alpine Grassland Research Station of Jingqianghe Area,China.The results showed that in Jingqianghe area,the growth period of all the varieties of oat (Avena sativa) was nearly 100d,all of them were mid term mature or late mature varieties; Among them,No.444 Yongjiu,P67,Canadian Cultivator and No.404 Yongjiu grew rapidly,with 2.70cm/d、2.36cm/d、2.22cm/d and 2.02cm/d growth speed respectively; The variety of Canadian Cultivated had the highest absolute growth rate(AGR) and the variety of No.1 Yongjiu possessed the highest relative growth rate(RGR); The variety of P20 had the highest forage yield,with 50.55 and 16.18t/hm 2 of the fresh matter(FM) and dry matter(DM),while the variety of No.440 Yongjiu Oat possessed the lowest forage yield,with 17.22t/hm 2 FM and 5.51t/hm 2 DM: Compared with other Varieties,P67,No.444 Yongjiu,No.066 and Romania had lower stem/leaf ratio(S/L),more leaves and better palatability,their qualities were better,they were the better varieties to get high quality grassland.When combined all the measurements,it can be concluded that P20,CC,P67 and No.444 were the target varieties used for artificial oat grassland with high productivity and good quality in Jingqianghe area,the Tianzhu alpine region of China.

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 score0.863
Threshold uncertainty score0.215

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations2
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa Agrestia SinicaSame topicAgronomic Practices and Intercropping SystemsFrench-language works237,207