MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2886744796 · doi:10.5539/jas.v10n9p443

Effect of Drying Temperature in the Physiological Quality of Jatropha curcas Seeds

2018· article· en· W2886744796 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Alessandra Olmo Dardengo, Henrique Duarte Vieira, Bruno Borges Deminicis, Pedro Amorim Berbert, Márcia Terezinha Ramos de Oliveira, Érico da Silva Lima

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSeed Germination and Physiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFundação Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de JaneiroCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsJatropha curcasJatrophaBiodieselBiofuelGerminationBioenergyAgronomyBiodiesel productionEnvironmental scienceRenewable energyCropMathematicsPulp and paper industryHorticultureBiologyBiotechnologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stimulating the use of renewable energy instead of fossil fuels, especially biofuels, has become one of the alternatives to the issue of global warming. Of these species listed for the production of biodiesel is the Jatropha curcas crop. The aim of this study was to analyze the drying of the seeds of Jatropha, as well as to verify the effect of the different temperatures on the quality of the product, germination percentage and Emergence speed index (ESI). The experimental design was a completely randomized design, with four replications. Experimental drier was used to test the temperatures of 29, 35, 40, 45 and 50 °C and the data were compared by regression equation. The vigor and germination of the jatropha seeds were little affected as the drying temperatures were increased to 50 °C.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 topicSeed Germination and PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207