MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2999776851

Timely Autumn Seeding of Annual Ryegrass Is Essential for High Yield

2019· article· en· W2999776851 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jennifer M. Johnson, Edzard van Santen

Bibliographic record

VenueUKnowledge (University of Kentucky) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicTurfgrass Adaptation and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeedingYield (engineering)AgronomyBiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of annual ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum Lam.) as a winter cover crop and grazing option in the Southeast Unit-ed States has become a common practice. Recent research evaluating the effects of seeding time on seed yield in Canada determined autumn seeding produces the most desired results relative spring seeding, but indicated that varied autumn seeding rates would further their findings (Coulman et al. 2013). A University of Arkansas study utilized cool season annuals, wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and annual ryegrass, to evaluate animal performance and seeding date effects. This research indicated that seeding cool-season annuals in early September may result in greater autumn forage production relative late October seeding. (Coffey et al. 2013). While current recommendations in the Southeast United States are to plant annual ryegrass in early autumn, differences among dates and locations have not been evaluated to maximize yield and provide the best forage utilization for producers. The objective of the study is to develop extension recommendations for autumn date seeding of annual ryegrass for maximum seasonal yield potential.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.179
Teacher spread0.173 · 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 venueUKnowledge (University of Kentucky)Same topicTurfgrass Adaptation and ManagementFrench-language works237,207