MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2771906547 · doi:10.1590/0034-737x201764060007

Effects of grain-producing cover crops on rice grain yield in Cabo Delgado, Mozambique

2017· article· en· W2771906547 on OpenAlexaff
Adriano Stephan Nascente, José Dambiro, Clérico Constantino

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista CERES · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural pest management studies
Canadian institutionsAga Khan Foundation
FundersConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
KeywordsLablab purpureusVignaAgronomyMucuna pruriensRandomized block designCover cropPennisetumMucunaBiologyLegume

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Besides providing benefits to the environment such as soil protection, release of nutrients, soil moisture maintenance, and weed control, cover crops can increase food production for grain production. The aim of this study was to evaluate the production of biomass and grain cover crops (and its respective effects on soil chemical and physical attributes), yield components, and grain yield of rice in Mozambique. The study was conducted in two sites located in the province of Cabo Delgado, in Mozambique. The experimental design was a randomized block in a 2 × 6 factorial, with four repetitions. Treatments were carried out in two locations (Cuaia and Nambaua) with six cover crops: Millet (Pennisetum glaucum L.); namarra bean (Lablab purpureus (L.) Sweet), velvet beans (Mucuna pruriens L.), oloco beans (Vigna radiata (L.) R. Wilczek), cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.), and fallow. Cover crops provided similar changes in chemical and physical properties of the soil. Lablab purpureus, Vigna unguiculata, and Mucuna pruriens produced the highest dry matter biomass. Vigna unguiculada produced the highest amount of grains. Rice grain yields were similar under all cover crops and higher in Cuaia than Nambaua.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.678
Threshold uncertainty score0.441

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations17
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista CERESSame topicAgricultural pest management studiesFrench-language works237,207