MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2370524964

A study on growth characteristics of different cultivars of oat(Avena sativa) in alpine region

2012· article· en· W2370524964 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Changlin Xu

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Pratacultural Science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicRegional Economic and Spatial Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAvenaSowingCultivarYield (engineering)HayAgronomyBiologyPlant growthHorticulturePhysics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The phonological phase,plant height,number of plants,yield and ratio of stem and leaf of eleven oat(Avena sativa) varieties in alpine regions of the Eastern Qilian Mountains were studied.The varieties Denmark No.444 and No.1 Qing-yongjiu could mature in these regions making them suitable for harvesting seeds and herbages.The plant height,plant tillers and herbage yield of introduced varieties were 130.6-155.7 cm,2.77 tillers and 13.32-21.77 t/ha respectively,which were 1.1-1.4 times,1.2 times and 1.9-3.2 times compared with the control.The varieties No.479 Qing-yongjiu,No.52 Qing-yongjiu,No.489 Qing-yongjiu,Chabei and Canadian had higher leaf contents(about 15% of total yields),while No.52 Qing-yongjiu,No.440 Qing-yongjiu,No.47 Qing-yongjiu,No.101 Qing-yongjiu,No.489 Qing-yongjiu,Chabei and Denmark No.444 had higher herbage yields(18.10 to 21.77 t/ha).The yields of oats could be estimated by the model Y=2 849.445+32.523H(R=0.886,P0.01),where Y is the hay yields(g/m2) and H is the plant height(cm).Thus,the varieties No.52 Qing-yongjiu,No.479 Qing-yongjiu and Chabei had higher yields and leaf contents,making them suitable for planting in the alpine region.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa Pratacultural ScienceSame topicRegional Economic and Spatial AnalysisFrench-language works237,207