MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2912174017 · doi:10.5539/jas.v11n3p558

Variation of Water Availability in Initial Development of Safflower

2019· article· en· W2912174017 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nayara F. F. da S. Cruz, Luiz Antônio Zanão Júnior, Reginaldo Ferreira Santos, Luciene Kazue Tokura, Laís Fernanda Juchem do Nascimento, Jair Antônio Cruz Siqueira, Alessandra Mayumi Tokura Alovisi, Luzia A. da S. Cruz, Lorenzo C. M. Castanhari, Maisa Y. F. Otake, Marcos Antonio Polinarski, Pablo Chang, Vander F. Silveira, Bruna S. Schuster

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGrowth and nutrition in plants
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeedlingDry weightGerminationIrrigationShootHorticultureBiologyAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The availability of water is one of the most important factors for the development of the seeds. Thus, studies related to adequate humidity for germination, emergence and early development of safflowers, is necessary for the productive use of this culture. Thus, the objective of study was to evaluate the initial development of two varieties of seeds of Safflowers (IAPAR and IMA2103) in six levels of water availability in substrate: 0, 10, 20, 30, 40 and 50%. At 15 days the seedling emergence were evaluate. At 30 days were evaluate plant height, root length, stem diameter, number of leaves, fresh weight of the aerial part and root, dry weight of shoot and root. The treatment without irrigation, there was decrease the emergence, emergence speed for both genotypes. Treatments above 30% of water availability in the two varieties presented emergency superior to 50%. Lower irrigation rates favored root length and dry mass.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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