MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2518991090 · doi:10.21273/hortsci.38.7.1381

Ornamental Cabbage Quality Improved by Continual Fertilization through Center-head Coloration

2003· article· en· W2518991090 on OpenAlexaff
James L. Gibson, Brian E. Whipker

Bibliographic record

VenueHortScience · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGrowth and nutrition in plants
Canadian institutionsMilton District Hospital
FundersAgricultural Research Service
KeywordsOrnamental plantHuman fertilizationBrassica oleraceaFertilizerBiologyHorticultureNutrientShootBotanyAgronomyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Current fertilizer recommendations for ornamental cabbage ( Brassica oleracea var. acephala DC.) suggest applying 150 to 300 mg·L -1 N until the initiation of color development, after which fertilization should be reduced or discontinued. Because these plants are actively growing during cool weather when coloration is initiated, nutrient deficiencies may reduce overall plant quality. The objectives of this study were to investigate N to K ratios for plant growth of ornamental cabbage and the effects of continual and discontinued fertilization during the period of coloration. Fertilizing with 150 to 200 mg·L -1 N and 150 to 200 mg·L -1 K produced high-quality plants and provided sufficient tissue concentrations of N and K. Center-head coloration was not inhibited by N concentrations as high as 250 mg·L -1 . Ceasing fertilization prior to center-head coloration resulted in the rapid depletion of N, P, and K concentrations in the lower foliage, leading to the appearance of deficiency symptoms and lower leaf loss. Plants were still actively growing as measured by increased shoot mass during the early stages of coloration; therefore, growers should continue to provide a complete analysis fertilizer at N concentrations ≥150 mg·L -1 until market date.

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 score0.707
Threshold uncertainty score0.230

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations3
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHortScienceSame topicGrowth and nutrition in plantsFrench-language works237,207