MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3139487268 · doi:10.5539/jas.v12n11p260

Genotype Effect on Proximate and Mineral Analysis of Safflower as a Green Leafy Vegetable

2020· article· en· W3139487268 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
O.G. Moatshe, Vallantino E. Emongor, Patrick K. Mashiqa

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSunflower and Safflower Cultivation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandomized block designPotassiumPhosphorusProximatePetiole (insect anatomy)Dry matterHorticultureAnimal scienceBiologyAgronomyWater contentChemistryBotanyFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two field trials were carried out at the Botswana University of Agriculture and Natural Resources Content Farm (59o24′S, 95o25′E and 993 m above sea level) in Southern Region of Botswana, to evaluate the effects of genotypes on proximate and mineral composition of safflower leaves. Five safflower genotypes (Kiama composite (local), Sina-PI-537598, Gila-PI-537692, PI-537636 and PI-527710) were evaluated in a randomized complete block design (RCBD) with three replications. During the rosette stage safflower leaves (both petiole and blade) were harvested, dried, and ground for analysis. The results showed that safflower genotypes significantly varied in the leaf proximate content of crude protein (24-28%), crude fibre (8-14%), moisture content (86-87%) and dry matter content (13-14%) in both winter and summer growing seasons. The genotype ‘Sina’ had the highest crude fibre content compared to other genotypes. The average leaf mineral content significantly (p < 0.05) varied from 2-3 mg g-1 phosphorus, 3-4 mg g-1 calcium, 5-6 mg g-1 sodium, 15-17 mg g-1 magnesium and 15-18 mg g-1 potassium. The Na:K and Ca:P ratios ranged between 0.18 and 3.41. All the safflower genotypes evaluated had sufficient nutritional content to be used as a green leafy vegetable for human consumption and food security.

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 score0.938
Threshold uncertainty score0.177

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicSunflower and Safflower CultivationFrench-language works237,207