MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2943240898 · doi:10.5539/jas.v11n6p547

Irrigation Depth and Nitrogen Fertilization on Production and Quality of Cherry Tomatoes

2019· article· en· W2943240898 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Antonio P. dos Santos, Adriana Rodolfo da Costa, Patrícia C. Silva, Pedro Rogério Giongo, Márcio Mesquita, Anailda Angélica Lana Drumond

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGrowth and nutrition in plants
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIrrigationTitratable acidHuman fertilizationAgronomyCultivarNitrogenUreaCherry tomatoProductivityUreaseEnvironmental scienceFertigationMathematicsHorticultureChemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nitrogen fertilization and water supply are determinant factors for production and physical-chemical quality of cherry tomato. The objective of this study is to evaluate the productivity and quality of cherry tomatoes, cultivar Carolina, produced under different irrigation depth and nitrogen treatments. The experiment was conducted in a protected environment in randomized blocks and a 5 × 3 factorial design with three replications. The treatments were integrated by the combination of five irrigation depth consisting of 50, 75, 100, 125 and 150% of replacement of the reference evapotranspiration (ETo), and three nitrogen treatments fertilization (common urea, urea with urease inhibitor and without the application of nitrogen). The productive and qualitative characteristics of tomato fruits were evaluated. Productivity was better responsive with the 125% ETo depth. The 100% ETo depth provided the highest titratable acidity. Nitrogen treatments did not promote differences in productivity and quality of tomatoes.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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