MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2775323298 · doi:10.5539/jas.v10n1p225

Gompertz and Logistic Models to the Productive Traits of Sunn Hemp

2017· article· en· W2775323298 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Claúdia Marques de, Alberto Cargnelutti Filho, Gabriela Görgen Chaves, Jéssica Andiara Kleinpaul, Rafael Vieira Pezzini, André Lavezo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Management and Crop Yield
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio Grande do SulConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsGompertz functionSowingAkaike information criterionMathematicsDry matterConfidence intervalShootStatisticsStandard errorStandard deviationCoefficient of determinationHorticultureAgronomyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Studies on growth models for productive character of sunn hemp are important to know the behavior of the culture. Therefore, the objective of this research was to adjust non-linear models, Gompertz and Logistic, in the description of productive traits of sunn hemp in two sowing periods. Two uniformity trials were performed. The evaluations began on October the 29th 2014 and December the 16th 2014, totaling 94 and 76 evaluation days for periods 1 and 2, respectively. After the emergence of the seeds of sunn hemp, for first period from 7 days after sowing, and from 2 to 13 days after sowing, on each day, they were collected randomly four plants. The traits: fresh matter leaf, stem, root, shoot, and total, and dry matter leaf, stem, root, shoot, and total. For both models the confidence interval was calculated of parameters a, b and c. The adjustment quality of the Gompertz and Logistic models was verified by the determination coefficient, the Akaike information criteria, residual standard deviation, mean absolute deviation, mean absolute percentage error and mean prediction error. The Gompertz model when compared between the sowing periods through the confidence interval of the parameters, for the productive traits, differs. The same result was found for the Logistic model. The growth models of Gompertz and Logistic presented good adjustment quality.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations22
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicSoil Management and Crop YieldFrench-language works237,207