MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2782805330 · doi:10.5539/jas.v10n2p260

Growth Rates and Sunflower Production in Function of Fertilization with Biochar and NPK

2018· article· en· W2782805330 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
G.F. Furtado, Lúcia Helena Garófalo Chaves

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGrowth and nutrition in plants
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiocharSunflowerHuman fertilizationFertilizerAgronomyNutrientChemistryAnimal scienceBiologyPyrolysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of alternative sources such as biochar can contribute to sustainable agriculture. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of fertilization with biochar in combination with mineral fertilizer, growth rates and yield of sunflower cv. Embrapa 122/V2000. The experiment was carried out in a protected environment of UAEAg/CTRN/UFCG in pots with a capacity of 20 dm3 under a completely randomized experimental design, with treatments arranged in a factorial scheme (5 × 4) and four replicates corresponding to five doses of mineral fertilization 0, 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% of fertilization indication with NPK (100, 300, and 150 mg kg-1) and four doses of biochar, 0; 5% (400 g/pot); 10% (800 g/pot) and 15% (1100 g/pot) calculated on the basis of the soil volume. Fertilization with biochar promoted an increase in sunflower growth rates in the evaluation periods. The combination of 50: 150: 75 mg kg-1 of NPK and 400 g/pot of biochar promotes higher production of sunflower (23.91 g/plant).

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations6
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicGrowth and nutrition in plantsFrench-language works237,207