MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2805189738 · doi:10.5539/jas.v10n7p295

Phosphorus and Zinc Extractable and Total in Substrate Enriched Coconut Powder and Tomato Cultivation

2018· article· en· W2805189738 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
David Correia dos Anjos, Antonio Alves Maia Neto, Gabrielen de Maria Gomes Dias, Fernando Felipe Ferreyra Hernández, Rebecca Tirado‐Corbalá

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGrowth and nutrition in plants
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubstrate (aquarium)ZincPhosphorusDry matterNutrientChemistryHorticultureAnimal scienceFood scienceBotanyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Phosphorus (P) and Zinc (Zn) stand out for their interactions, however, little is known about the interaction of these elements in organic substrates used in the development of plants. The objective of this work was to evaluate the extractable and total P and Zn of the enriched coconut powder substrate and the development of tomato seedlings grown on the same substrate. The work consisted of 10 treatments and 4 replicates with different doses of P and Zn. The substrate used was coconut powder enriched with nutrient solutions in a ratio of 10:1 (v/m). Then, the experiment was conducted using the enriched substrate to observe the effect of P and Zn doses on the development of tomato seedlings in trays. The height, number of leaves and the dry matter of the plants were evaluated. For the water and Mehlich-1 extractors the highest values of P and Zn were for treatments with the highest doses and only the quadratic positive effect of P did not differ statistically in the enriched coconut powder substrate. The results showed that the coconut powder used as substrate is deficient in P and Zn. The highest development of the seedlings was obtained at the doses of 74 mg L-1 P and 3.25 and 4.75 mg L-1 Zn of the substrate enrichment solution.

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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

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 communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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