MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4291914749 · doi:10.9734/ajraf/2022/v8i430163

Effect of Different Rates of Liquid Trichoderma harzianum on Growth Enhancement of Tissue Cultured Abaca Seedlings

2022· article· en· W4291914749 on OpenAlexaff
Genelyn H. Mahusay, Onofre Corpuz

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Journal of Research in Agriculture and Forestry · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Growth Enhancement Techniques
Canadian institutionsCanadian Women's Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrichodermaTrichoderma harzianumHorticultureShootSeedlingBiological pest controlBiologyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study was conducted to evaluate the effect of different rates of liquid Trichoderma harsianum on the growth enhancement of tissue-cultured Abaca seedlings. There are six treatments replicated four (4) times with 5 samples per replication. The following were the treatment: T0-control, T1- 50 ml of L.T, T2- 40 ml of L.T, T3-30 ml of L.T, T4- 20 ml of L.T, and T5-10ml of L.T/liter of water. Based on the results, it did not successfully reject the null hypothesis on plant height, pseudostem girth, leaf count per plant, leaf area per plant, and the number of primary roots of Abaca seedlings treated with liquid Trichoderma harsianum. While the two parameters successfully rejected the null hypothesis, there is highly significant that developed greater lengths for their shoot and root lengths treated with liquid Trichoderma harsianum. When compared to the control, the use of Liquid Trichoderma harsianum can significantly increase abaca growth. Treatment 3 of Abaca seedlings with 30 ml of liquid Trichoderma harsianum was the most effective of the five treatments with this substance. The correlation between treatments and parameters is also favorable.

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)0.002
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.286

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Journal of Research in Agriculture and ForestrySame topicPlant Growth Enhancement TechniquesFrench-language works237,207