MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2393949587

Effects of different levels of nitrogen on physiological characteristics of function leaf and plant traits and yield components of cotton

2005· article· en· W2393949587 on OpenAlexaff
Sun Hongchun

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicResearch in Cotton Cultivation
Canadian institutionsCAE (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNitrogenPhotosynthesisLintNitrogen deficiencyAgronomyYield (engineering)ChemistryCarbohydrateHorticultureBiologyBotanyBiochemistry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bt-transgenic hybrid cotton CCRI29 was used, the effects of physiological characteristics of function leaf,plant traits and yield components by applying different levels of nitrogen fertilizer(375.0 kg/hm~2,high N;187.5 kg/hm~2,middle N;0 kg/hm~2,low N) in the field were studied.The main results are as follows:① Changing nitrogen application amount had some effects on carbohydrate metabolism and protein content of function leaf on the stem.Carbohydrate synthesis was inhibited under high nitrogen treatment,but protein content was heightened.The soluble protein content of leaf was the lowest under the treatment of low-nitrogen.② Compared with mid-nitrogen and low-nitrogen,high-nitrogen boosted the plant height and leaf area index,which extended leaf function period,but had little effect on development date.③ Photosynthesis rate of function leaf was the highest under the condition of middle nitrogen.But photosynthesis was reduced under low-nitrogen level,which accelerated the leaf senescence.The soluble protein content of leaf was the lowest under the treatment of low-nitrogen,which accelerated the leaf senescence.④ There was significant difference between the lint yields of different nitrogen conditions and the order of lint yield was mid-nitrogen high-nitrogen low-nitrogen.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.596
Threshold uncertainty score0.112

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.174 · 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

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicResearch in Cotton CultivationFrench-language works237,207