MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4232919452 · doi:10.1139/x00-023

Effects of root wrenching on leaf mineral content of<i>Prunus avium</i>and<i>Castanea sativa</i>seedlings

2000· article· en· W4232919452 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
N.A. Hipps, T. J. Samuelson, L.G. Farman

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicHorticultural and Viticultural Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrunusPhosphorusSeedlingHorticultureBotanyBiologyNitrogenPotassiumNutrientChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The roots of wild cherry (Prunus avium L.) and sweet chestnut (Castanea sativa Mill.) seedlings grown from seed in a nursery bed were cut by passing a wedge-shaped blade horizontally through the soil (wrenched) at 20 cm depth on 10 July (early) or 12 August (late) or on both dates. Nitrogen concentrations in leaves of C. sativa and P. avium seedlings were severely reduced by early or late root wrenching, and except for the early wrenched C. sativa, seedlings had not fully recovered by the end of the growing season compared with the controls. Phosphorus concentrations also were reduced in the leaves of both species by wrenching treatments, but were similar to those found in undisturbed seedlings by the end of the season. The effects of wrenching treatments on the concentrations of potassium, manganese, and calcium in leaves of either species were generally negligible. The reduction in concentrations and total foliar content of nitrogen and phosphorus caused by the wrenching treatments in leaves of these species did not have a negative effect on growth following outplanting.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.228 · 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
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicHorticultural and Viticultural ResearchFrench-language works237,207