MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2526161984

Effect of Electrical Conductivity (EC) on the Growth and Flower Production of Anthurium ( Anthurium andreanum )

2016· article· en· W2526161984 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ghida Mohammad Eid, Nabel Albatal, Souheil Haddad

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Horticulture · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and Biological Electrophysiology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnthuriumDistilled waterFertilizerCultivarElectrical resistivity and conductivityHorticultureConductivityBiologyAgronomyBotanyChemistryPhysics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The experiment was conducted in Agriculture engineering college in Damascus during the summer season 2007 to study the effect of electrical conductivity on the growth of Anthurium andreanum and its tolerance patterns, throughout special period of time. Our study was carried out on two varieties of Anthurium (Red queen-Elizabeth) under suitable and unified conditions for all plants of the two cultivars in the green house, supplemented by two kinds of water. The first is distilled water to which we added some salts of compound fertilizer of N: P: K with 1:0.5:1.5 to create different levels of electrical conductivity (0- 1- 1.5- 2) ds/m. The second is tap water where the electrical conductivity is 0.30 ds/m and so we added salts of compound fertilizer of N: P: K with 1:0.5:1.5 to it to create other levels of electrical conductivity (1- 1.5- 2) ds/m. One year old plants were used and many variables were studied. Results showed that when EC was increased above 1ds/m, the growth of the plant decreased including the number of flowers and leaves. It was clear that tab was better than distilled water.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of HorticultureSame topicPlant and Biological Electrophysiology StudiesFrench-language works237,207