MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

CRESCIMENTO INICIAL DE CLONES DE EUCALYPTUS EM FUNÇÃO DA ADUBAÇÃO DE NPK

2019· article· pt· W2928202250 on OpenAlexaff
H.A.S. Silva, Salatiér Buzetti, R.N. Gazola, Guilherme Marques, Marcelo Carvalho Minhoto Teixeira Filho, Raíssa Pereira Dinalli Gazola

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista Brasileira de Engenharia de Biossistemas · 2019
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGrowth and nutrition in plants
Canadian institutionsMinistère de l’Emploi et de la Solidarité Sociale (Québec)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEucalyptusHorticultureBiologyMathematicsBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A adubação NPK e a escolha do material genético são fundamentais no estabelecimento e na produtividade da cultura. Assim objetivou-se avaliar o efeito de adubação mineral de plantio, no crescimento de clones de eucalipto (Eucalyptus urophylla x Eucalyptus grandis), em solo de Cerrado. O experimento foi conduzido de outubro de 2015 a julho de 2017, na fazenda Campo Verde IV, localizada no município de Selvíria - MS. O delineamento experimental foi o de blocos casualizados com 12 tratamentos e quatro repetições, em esquema fatorial 3x4, sendo três clones (I144, H13 e 1528) e quatro doses: 0, 160, 320 e 640 kg ha-1 da fórmula 08-32-16 + 0,5% B, 0,5% Cu e 0,5% Zn. Cada parcela foi composta por 42 plantas, distribuídas em sete linhas de seis plantas cada, totalizando 378,0 m2 de área, sendo considerada área útil apenas as seis plantas centrais, totalizando 54,0 m2. Foram avaliados aos 17 meses de idade o diâmetro à altura do peito (DAP) e volume de madeira com casca. A adubação propiciou aumento do DAP e da produtividade de madeira para os três clones, sendo o 1528 mais produtivo.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

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 communication0.0010.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.238 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista Brasileira de Engenharia de BiossistemasSame topicGrowth and nutrition in plantsFrench-language works237,207