MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2515992337 · doi:10.5539/jas.v8n9p226

Evaluation of Pre- or Postharvest Application of Some Minerals and Organic Agents on the Growth, Flowering and Vase Life of Rudbeckia hirta, L.

2016· article· en· W2515992337 on OpenAlex
Mohamed A. M. Hegazi

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFlowering Plant Growth and Cultivation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHorticulturePostharvestVase lifeDistilled waterChemistryAnimal scienceBiologyCultivar

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>The experiments were carried out during 2014 and 2015 summer seasons at the greenhouses of the Experimental Farm of Faculty of Agriculture, Kafr El-Sheikh University. The experiments were conducted in two phases: First one (pre-harvest): <em>Rudbeckia hirta</em> seedlings were transplanted during the first week of May to 30 cm diameter plastic pots filled with a soil mixture of clay and sand (1:1, v:v). Pots were divided in two equal groups, the first one, plants were foliar sprayed with one of the following:- Distilled water for the control treatment, CaCl<sub>2</sub> (125, 250, 375 mg·L<sup>-1</sup>), NiSO<sub>4</sub> (30, 45, 60 mg·L<sup>-1</sup>), CoCl<sub>2</sub> (50, 75, 100 mg·L<sup>-1</sup>), K<sub>2</sub>SiO<sub>3</sub> (100, 150, 200 mg·L<sup>-1</sup>) and SA (100, 150, 200 mg·L<sup>-1</sup>) at 60, 45, 30 and 15 days before harvest. The second group was without pre-harvest application assay (untreated plants).</p><p>Second phase (postharvest) was conducted in two different methods as follows: First method, flower stems resulted from each pre-harvest treatment were preserved in 250 mL graduated test tube filled with 200 mL of standard holding solution consists of sucrose (4%) + 8-Hydroxyquinoline citrate (250 mg·L<sup>-1</sup>). The second method, flower stems resulted from plants without pre-harvest application preserved in holding solution consists of a constant sucrose (4%) and 8-Hydroxyquinoline citrate (250 mg·L<sup>-1</sup>) beside one of the following additives: Distilled water for the control treatment, CaCl<sub>2</sub> (125, 250, 375 mg·L<sup>-1</sup>), NiSO<sub>4</sub> (30, 45, 60 mg·L<sup>-1</sup>), CoCl<sub>2</sub> (50, 75, 100 mg·L<sup>-1</sup>), K<sub>2</sub>SiO<sub>3</sub> (100, 150, 200 mg·L<sup>-1</sup>) and Salicylic acid (100, 150, 200 mg·L<sup>-1</sup>). Results showed that, pre harvest spraying plants with higher levels of K<sub>2</sub>SiO<sub>3</sub> or CaCl<sub>2</sub> recorded the highest values for all plant vegetation characters. K<sub>2</sub>SiO<sub>3</sub> followed by SA excelled on others in most flowering aspects. At the post harvest stage, SA, K<sub>2</sub>SiO<sub>3</sub> and CaCl<sub>2</sub> exchanged the excellence between them for most vase life measurements. Flowers resulted from plants that preharvest treated was better than those that did not preharvest treated.</p>

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.795
Threshold uncertainty score0.100

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.212 · 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