MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2943397294 · doi:10.5539/jas.v11n7p220

Modeling the Recommendation of Nutrients for Cabbage (Brassica oleracea) Crop

2019· article· en· W2943397294 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Thaísa Fernanda Oliveira, Leonardo Ângelo de Aquino, Maria Elisa Soares, Talita Gabriela Gentil, Flávio Lemes Fernandes, Júnia Maria Clemente, Marcelo Rodrigues dos Reis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBanana Cultivation and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNutrientBrassica oleraceaFertilizerCropAgronomyEnvironmental scienceAgricultural engineeringNutrient managementBiologyEcologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cabbage presents high nutrients demand, which requires proposal of recommendation models that are compatible with current productive potential. The objective of this study was to propose a nutritional balance model to recommend nutrients for cabbage. In order to estimate fertilizer recommendation, the system considered the requirement subsystem (REQ), which includes the crop demand and recovery efficiency (RE) of the applied nutrient, and supply subsystem (SUP), which corresponds to the nutrient supply by soil and crop residues. To determine the attributes needed to estimate nutritional demand, values were obtained from literature and from two experiments, one with nitrogen (N) and one with potassium (K). The fertilizer recommendation for N, P and K consisted in the difference between REQ and SUP. For the other nutrients, the system presented only crop export and extraction and not the REQ due to scarcity of data regarding RE. The modeling is a useful tool for recommending fertilization for cabbage and is subject to constant improvements.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.892
Threshold uncertainty score0.229

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 teacher head, 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 topicBanana Cultivation and ResearchFrench-language works237,207