MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2782945116 · doi:10.5539/jas.v10n2p352

Evaluation of Substrates for Jenipapo (Genipa americana L.) Seedlings Production

2018· article· en· W2782945116 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ana Veruska Cruz da Silva, Adrielle Naiana Ribeiro Soares, Milena Nascimento Cardoso, Marília Freitas de Vasconcelos Melo, Evandro Neves Muniz, Ana da Silva Lédo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGrowth and nutrition in plants
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsManureShootDry matterSeedlingClay soilCompletely randomized designAgronomyBiologyRubiaceaeHorticultureSowingBotanySoil waterEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Jenipapo (Genipa americana L. Rubiaceae) is a native species not endemic to Brazil and found in several biomes. The objective of this work was to evaluate the emergence and growth of seedlings cultivated in different substrates. Treatments were made of: T1 (fertilized soil), T2 (fertilized soil + coconut fiber), T3 (fertilized soil + sand), T4 (sand + coconut fiber), T5 (bovine manure + coconut fiber), and T6 (bovine manure + sand). The experiment consisted of a completely randomized design, with six treatments (substrates) and four replications of 25 seeds. The following variables were evaluated: first emergence count, percentage of emergence, emergence speed index, seedling height, root length, stem diameter, number of leaves, relative chlorophyll content (SPAD), leaf area, root dry matter, and shoot dry matter. The substrates T1 (fertilized soil), T2 (fertilized soil + coconut fiber), T3 (fertilized soil + sand) and T6 (bovine manure + sand) were more efficient for jenipapo seedlings production.

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)0.002
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.751
Threshold uncertainty score0.205

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 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

Citations8
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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