Different Substrates and Container Volumes in the Emergence and Ministumps Formation of Physalis peruviana L.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To obtain quality seedlings, it is necessary to use good production techniques. Important factors include the container and the form of propagation. Therefore, the objective of this work was to evaluate the influence of two substrates and container volumes on the emergence and formation of Physalis peruviana L. mini-stumps. The work was carried out from September to November 2019, in a greenhouse belonging to the Federal University Network of the Holy Spirit. The design used was completely randomized, in a factorial scheme with the combination of three containers (R1 = tube with a volume of 50 ml; R2 = tube with a volume of 280 ml and R3 = plastic cups with a volume of 500 ml) and two substrates (S1 = Bioplant® and S2 = Provaso® + soil 1:1), totaling six treatments, four replications, six plants per experimental unit and 144 plants. After 90 days of experiment, it is recommended for a better emergence and emission of the shoots of Physalis peruviana L. the use of the volume of 280 ml, combined with the substrate Provaso® + soil.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".