MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2391645014

Effects of fertilization and planting density on yield of bitter gourd

2012· article· en· W2391645014 on OpenAlexaff
He Zhong

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAdvances in Cucurbitaceae Research
Canadian institutionsCAE (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBitter gourdSowingYield (engineering)GourdHuman fertilizationPhosphorusFertilizerHorticultureCrop yieldPotassiumNitrogenAgronomyChemistryBotanyBiologyMomordicaTraditional medicineMedicineMaterials science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

[Objective]Effects of different fertilization and planting density on bitter gourd yield at different harvesting stages were studied to improve the yield and quality of bitter gourd in order to assist in increasing farmers' income.[Method]Using Cuizhongcui bitter gourd as test material,effects of nitrogen,potassium,phosphorus,and planting density on yield of bitter gourd were evaluated based on the optimum compound design 416-B.[Result]Nitrogen application rate was significantly positively correlated with bitter gourd yield at early harvesting stage.The influence degree of 3 factors on yield followed the following sequence:N K P.Planting density was significantly positively correlated with the accumulative yield of bitter gourd(y1)in 15 days.To achieve the highest accumulative yield of bitter gourd in 15 days,the optimal N,P,K application formula was N 304.80㎏/ha,P2O5 148.56㎏/ha,and K2O 351.75㎏/ha,with planting density of 29010 plants/ha.[Conclusion]Nitrogen fertilizer and planting density were the most predominant factors affecting yield rate of bitter gourd at early harvesting stage.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.143

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 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 topicAdvances in Cucurbitaceae ResearchFrench-language works237,207