MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2809247612 · doi:10.5376/ijh.2018.08.0014

An Over Review of Micronutrients on Growth, Yield and Quality of Citrus

2018· article· en· W2809247612 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
V. Suresh, M. Ammaan, R.P. Jagadeeshkanth

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Horticulture · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Physiology and Cultivation Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicronutrientYield (engineering)BiologyQuality (philosophy)HorticultureEnvironmental scienceAgronomyChemistryMaterials sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Citrus is primarily valued for the fruit, which is either used alone as fresh fruit, processed into juice or added to dishes and beverages. In this area farmer’s obtained low yield due to micronutrient deficiency next to pest and disease. In this hill ecosystem, deficiency of micronutrient causes adverse effects on fruit orchard, making it unfit for consumption. Use of micronutrient reduces the deficiency thus improving plant growth and yield. The foliar application of micronutrients increases the photosynthetic compounds inside the plant tissue which ultimately reduces the leaf drop and give strength for their persistency compare to soil application. It needs 17 essential elements for growth and development. Micronutrient deficiencies often tend to limit the productivity in this crop. Use of micronutrient reduces the deficiency thus improving plant growth and yield. The foliar application of micronutrients increases the photosynthetic compounds inside the plant tissue which ultimately reduces the leaf drop and give strength for their persistency compare to soil application. Deficiency of' micronutrients occur at various stages of growth and development of citrus plants. Micronutrients are required in very small quantities, yet they are very effective in regulating plant growth.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of HorticultureSame topicPlant Physiology and Cultivation StudiesFrench-language works237,207