MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2886294327 · doi:10.5539/jas.v10n9p209

Sample Sufficiency for Mean Estimation of Productive Traits of Sunn Hemp

2018· article· en· W2886294327 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Denison Esequiel Schabarum, Alberto Cargnelutti Filho, Claúdia Marques de, Giovani Facco, Jéssica Andiara Kleinpaul, Cleiton Antônio Wartha

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetics and Plant Breeding
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsSowingAgronomyMathematicsBiologyCrotalaria junceaConfidence intervalSample size determinationStatisticsGreen manure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sunn hemp (Crotalaria juncea L.) is an annual cycle legume with high potential for biological nitrogen fixation, being widely used in crop rotation for biomass formation and control of nematodes. The objectives of this study were to determine the sample size for the mean estimation of productive traits of sunn hemp and verify the sample size variability between traits and sowing dates. Two uniformity trials were performed in the agricultural year 2014/2015, with sowing in October (trial 1) and December (trial 2). At the crop flowering stage, 300 plants of each trial were harvested and fresh and dry matter of leaves, stem, root, aerial part, and total weight were evaluated. The normality and randomness tests were performed for each trait and the sample size was calculated for the semi-amplitudes of the confidence interval (estimation errors) of 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18 and 20% of the mean estimate. There is sample size variability between productive traits and between sowing dates. The assessment of at least 101 plants is required for mean estimation of productive traits with maximum estimation error of 20% of the mean and 95% confidence level.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.658
Threshold uncertainty score0.135

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicGenetics and Plant BreedingFrench-language works237,207