MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2766541069 · doi:10.5539/jas.v9n11p130

Adequacy of the Electrical Conductivity Test Methodology for Millet Seeds

2017· article· en· W2766541069 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Luanna Karoline Rinaldi, Diandra Javorski, Maicon Javorski, Ana Paula Mourão Simonetti, Tatiane Priscila Chiapetti, Maria Eunice Lima Rocha, Mayra Taniely Ribeiro Abade, Camila Hendges, Cleonice Lubian, Jaqueline de Araújo Barbosa, Guilherme Mascarello, Ivonei Perego

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSeed Germination and Physiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImbibitionGerminationCultivarAccelerated agingHorticultureAgronomyElectrical resistivity and conductivityMathematicsMaterials scienceEnvironmental scienceBiologyComposite materialEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Companies have sought to improve, more and more, the quality control of the seeds produced, improving tests that evaluate the vigor of the seeds with greater speed and precision. The objective of the present work was to study the effects of imbibition time on the results of the electrical conductivity test to evaluate the vigor of millet seeds and to correlate with the other tests carried out. Six seeds lots of the ADR300 cultivar with different vigor levels were used. Germination, first germination count, accelerated ageing, emergence and emergence speed of seedlings in sand and electrical conductivity with variations in water volume were performed (50 And 75 cm3), during the imbibition time of 2, 4, 6 and 8 hours, at 25 ºC. The time of 2 hours of the seed imbibition in 75 cm3 in water proved to be efficient to evaluate the vigor of millet seeds in all lots tested.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicSeed Germination and PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207