Plot Size and Number of Replications for Evaluation of the Yield of Grains in Cultivars and Dates of Sowing of Rye
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objectives of this study were to determine the optimum plot size (Xo) and the number of replications to evaluate the grains yield of rye (Secale cereale L.) and investigate the variability of Xo between two cultivars and three sowing dates. Eighteen uniformity trials were conducted with rye. The Xo was determined by the method of maximum curvature of the coefficient of variation model. The number of repetitions was determined in scenarios formed by combinations of i treatments (i = 3, 4, ... 50) and d minimum differences between means of treatments to be detected as significant at 0.05 of probability, by Tukey test, expressed in percentage of the average of the experiment (d = 10, 12, ... 30%). There is variability in optimum plot size to evaluate the grains yield among the cultivars BRS Progresso and Temprano and among sowing dates in the rye crop. The optimum plot size to evaluate the grains yield of rye is 6.08 m2. Seven replicates are sufficient to evaluate the grains yield of rye in experiments with up to 50 treatments, and identify, as significant at 5% probability by Tukey test, differences among averages of treatments of 29.65% of the mean of the experiment in designs completely randomized and randomized block.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it