MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2391189740

Study on the Change of Seeds Vigor and Nutrition of Two Kinds of Herbages in Different Storage Years

2012· article· en· W2391189740 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Min Song

Bibliographic record

VenueSeed · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGABA and Rice Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGerminationSowingBromusComposition (language)BiologyHorticultureBotanyAgronomyChemistryAnimal sciencePoaceae
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The thesis studied on the seed vigor and nutritive composition of Onobrychis viciifolia scop.cv.Mengnong and Bromus ciliatus L.in different storage years.The results showed that the germination rate of Onobrychis vicifolia scop.cv.Mengnong was changed from 18.5% to 86.0% during 10 storage years,Crude protein contents(23.78%-28.06%),Crude fat(2.00%-2.42%),Crude fiber(18.06%-19.64%),Crude ash(4.82%-8.41%),and N-free extract contents(46.02%-47.67%) had decreased on the whole among these years.The germination rate of Bromus ciliatus L.was changed from 4.25% to 68.50% during 11 storage years,Crude protein(12.65%-14.05%),Crude fat(1.60%-1.92%) and N-free extract contents(64.84%-65.92%) were not objective regulation among these years.The variation of Crude fiber(13.79%-15.18%) and Crude ash(4.65%-5.09%) had no significant change(p0.05).In the present experiment preserved condition,Onobrychis viciifolia scop.cv.Mengnong could keep the seed planting value from 7 to 8 years,and Bromus ciliatus L.could be kept from 6 to 7 years.Moreover,two kinds of seeds still had high nutritional value when they lost planting value(germination rate down to 50%).

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSeedSame topicGABA and Rice ResearchFrench-language works237,207