MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2501912348 · doi:10.1139/cjps-2016-0127

Effects of Pinching Treatment on Harvest Term and Plant Growth in Processing Tomato

2016· article· en· W2501912348 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Katsumi Ohta, Daisuke Ikeda

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Physiology and Cultivation Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShootSolanumHorticultureYield (engineering)Fruit setBiologyAgronomyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effects of pinching treatments carried out at the 3- and 6-true-leaf stages on harvest term and plant growth in processing tomato ‘Shuho’ (Solanum lycopersicum L.) were examined. Weekly yields in the 3- and 6-true-leaf pinching treatments were increased compared with those in the untreated control at 1 and 2 wk after the start of harvest, respectively. There were no differences among all treatments in yield, fruit weight, fruit number, or marketable fruit ratio. However, the fruit set ratio in the 3-true-leaf pinching treatment was increased more than those in the other treatments. The flowering periods in the pinching treatment groups were shorter than those of the control. The number of flowers per lateral shoot in the pinching treatment groups was greater than that in the control. DW in the lateral shoots in the 3-true-leaf pinching treatment was significantly greater than that in other treatment groups. The distribution of nitrogen and calcium in the lateral shoots in the 3-true-leaf pinching treatment was increased compared with those in other treatment groups. This result suggests that shortening of the harvest term and increasing initial fruit yield in the 3-true-leaf pinching treatment would be more efficient practices in processing tomato cultivation.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.880
Threshold uncertainty score0.436

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 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

Citations17
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicPlant Physiology and Cultivation StudiesFrench-language works237,207