MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W284944394 · doi:10.82308/7838

Effects of water stress on tomato at different growth stages

2001· article· en· W284944394 on OpenAlex

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Practices and Plant Genetics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsWater stressStress (linguistics)Environmental scienceBiologyHorticultureLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study sought to identify the effects of deficit irrigation on the yield and quality of tomatoes. A greenhouse experiment was conducted during the summer of 1999 and repeated in winter 2000 using nine treatments. Two threshold soil moisture deficit levels, 65% and 80% depletion of plant available water, were factorially combined with 5 irrigation timing patterns: (i) no water stress (ii) stress throughout season, (iii) stress during flowering and fruit set, (iv) stress during fruit growth and (v) stress during fruit ripening. The treatments were set up in a randomized complete block design with 4 replicates. Crop yields, maximum and minimum equatorial diameter and fruit heights were measured. The quality parameters included: soluble solids, pH and the color index. Water stress throughout the growing season significantly reduced yield and fruit size but increased the level of soluble solids. No water stress throughout the growing season or stress only during the flowering stage provided highest tomato yield.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.588

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.184 · 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