MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2515069437 · doi:10.21273/hortsci.40.4.997c

(60) Rooting Stem Cuttings in Compost Tea and Anaerobic Digestion Wastewater

2005· article· en· W2515069437 on OpenAlexaff
Calvin Chong, Jiyuan Yang, Bruce E. Holbein, R. P. Voroney, H. Zhou, H.-W. Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueHortScience · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant tissue culture and regeneration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCuttingCompostNutrientHorticultureBotanyOrnamental plantBiologyAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cuttings of sage ( Salviaofficinalis `Tricolor'), currant ( Ribesaureum ), euonymus ( Euonymus fortunei var. vegetus ), and weigela ( Weigela florida `Nana Variegata') were rooted under greenhouse conditions (40% shade) and mist in aerated hydroponic solutions consisting of deionized water, or mixtures of deionized water and nutrients with various levels of electrical conductivity (EC, 0.0625, 0.125, 0.25, and 0.5 dS·m -1 ) from each of three sources: compost tea from municipal solid waste; wastewater from anaerobic digestion of municipal solid waste; and Hoagland's (control) nutrient solution. Despite differences in species response, rooting tended to be similar with the three nutrient sources. Euonymus rooting percentage increased linearly with increasing EC and was similar with all three nutrient sources (common regression curve, 61% rooting at 0.5 dS·m -1 ), as did root length (1.4 cm at 0.5 dS·m -1 ), but root number was unresponsive. Currant rooting percent increased curvilinearly and similarly with nutrient sources (87% calculated maximum rooting at 0.25 dS·m -1 ), but root number and length were unresponsive. Sage rooting percentage and root number also increased curvilinearly and similarly with nutrient sources (common regression curve, 100% rooting at 0.34 dS·m -1 , and 4.1 roots at 0.38 dS·m -1 , respectively), as did also root length with the compost tea and Hoagland's (common curve for these two nutrient sources, 11.0 cm at 0.30 dS·m -1 ), but was unresponsive to wastewater. Weigela was unresponsive to EC or nutrient sources (mean percentage of rooting, 73; root number, 6.5; and root length, 1.9 cm).

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 score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.204

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.211 · 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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHortScienceSame topicPlant tissue culture and regenerationFrench-language works237,207