Methods of Soil Management and Depths of Sowing in Corn Cultivation
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
Corn (Zea mays L.) is one of the most cultivated grains in the world. It provides widely used products such as food, feed, raw materials for industry and ethanol, mainly due to the quantity and nature of its reserves accumulated in the grains. The objective of this research was to evaluate different depths of sowing and the use of different initial methods of soil preparation for growing corn. A randomized-complete blocks design was applied in a split plot with subsoiling, tillage, rotary hoe, ploughing, manual weeding and three sowing depths. Analysis of variance showed a significant difference (p < 0.01) of stem diameter (SD), plant height (PH), root fresh mass (RFM), root dry mass (RDM), aerial dry mass (ADM), aerial fresh mass (AFM), while number of leaves (NL) showed no differences statistically. Regarding to stem diameter, the methods with subsoiling, ploughing and rotating hoe showed the best results. In relation to plant height, the treatments of subsoiling, tillage, ploughing and rotating hoe had the best performances. The use of the subsoiling method showed the best results between the characteristics of the plant and corn yield. The corn yield presented better yields with the subsoiled and rotary hoe preparation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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