Bibliographic record
Abstract
Light as a dominant factor affected photosynthesis directly. Panax ginseng C. A. Mey. was a typical shade plant, so it had low tolerance for light. In this paper, the current research on ginseng growing light environment was mentioned. These studies, which aimed at planting ginseng in field and circled round light intensity and light quality in photosynthetically active radiation band, were dealt with in 1980s and 1990s mostly. Different befitting light for ginseng photosynthesis in these studies were resulted from genetic diversity of ginseng, variations of photosynthesis in different growing status and spatial distribution of light, however, some important conclusions were drawn included light saturation point appeared when light transmission rate of shed was 25% and else. After 2000, the existent results weren’t satisfied with current plant with the development of planting ginseng under forests. Although the relation between radiation spectrum and accumulation of root ginsenosides had been reported in Canada, light intensity in photosynthetically active radiation band was only studied in our country. Based on some problems lied in existed researches, the dynamic models which can simulate growth light environment of ginseng was the development trend in the future.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".