MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2909670894 · doi:10.5539/jas.v11n2p548

Growth and Vigor Analysis of Crimson Clover Seeds Obtained Through Different Seeds Size

2019· article· en· W2909670894 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ítala Thaísa Padilha Dubal, Ivan Ricardo Carvalho, Vinícius Jardel Szareski, João Roberto Pimentel, Cristian Troyjack, Gustavo Henrique Demari, Giordano Gelain Conte, Velci Queiróz de Souza, Carlos E. S. Pedroso, Francisco Amaral Villela, Tiago Pedó, Tiago Zanatta Aumonde

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGrowth and nutrition in plants
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsBiologyCultivarSeedlingAgronomyCropHorticulture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective to evaluate the effect of the size of the crimson clover seeds under the vigor of produced seeds, as well the growth and development throughout the crop cycle. The work was conducted in the experimental area of the Plant Science Department of the Federal University of Pelotas, in the state of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. It were used crimson clover seeds (Trifolium incarnatum L.), cultivar “Crimson Clover”. The seeds size effect affected the growth and the partition of the assimilated in the crimson clover plants, where medium size seeds raise the biomass accumulation in the different plants structures. Seeds of crimson clover produced from plants originated from different seed sizes did not presented difference in relation to the physiologic quality, seedling emergence and speed of emergence index.

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 score0.002
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.217
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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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