MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2943526630 · doi:10.5539/jas.v11n6p486

Management of Propagation Techniques of the Specie Croton lechleri Muell.Arg

2019· article· en· W2943526630 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jorge Zamir Erazo Amaya, Kaoru Yuyama, Edvan Alves Chagas, Ismael Montero-Fernández, Roberto Tadashi Sakazaki, João Luiz Lopes Monteiro Neto

Bibliographic record

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

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the aim of increasing the production of Croton lechleri Mull.Arg plants due to its attributes as a medicinal plant, the effect of different types of stakes and substrates as root promoters under intermittent nebulization conditions was evaluated. The work was conducted through a randomized complete block scheme adapting a factorial of 4 × 3, being the factors types of stakes (apical with leaves, apical without leaves, medium and basal) and substrates (sand, sand + Aserrin (1:1) and Aserrin (100%) at the rate of 10 stakes per repetition totaling 360 stakes throughout the experiment. The percentage of root (%), dead stakes (%), sprouted stakes (%), dead stake diameter was evaluated. (mm), shoot length (cm) and root length (cm) The Aserrin provided the highest number of dead stakes and the smallest number of shoots in the species, with apical stakes with leaves and the combination of sand + Aserrin as a substrate providing the highest percentage of roots formed, therefore these two factors influence the production of plants in the dragon blood species.

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 score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicGrowth and nutrition in plantsFrench-language works237,207