MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4323362368 · doi:10.18280/ijdne.180126

Influence of Sowing Dates and Seeding Rates of Spring Triticale (Triticosecale Wittmack) on Yields and Crop Structure Elements

2023· article· en· W4323362368 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Oleg Solovyov, Rustem Zholaman, Vladimir Shvidchenko

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Productivity and Crop Improvement
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistry of Agriculture of the Republic of Kazakhstan
KeywordsTriticaleSowingSeedingAgronomyHectareYield (engineering)CropSpring (device)MathematicsBiologyAgricultureEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the most important areas of development of the agro-industrial complex at the present stage is obtaining high and sustainable grain yields.Spring triticale plays a significant role in solving this problem, as one of the most productive grain crops.In this case, adjusting the seeding rate is an affordable and effective method for successfully managing the crop's productivity.The purpose of the study is to substantiate the optimal sowing dates and seeding rates of spring triticale in the zone of ordinary chernozems of Northern Kazakhstan, providing a maximum yield of grain products.The innovation of this article is that it presents data on the study of sowing dates and seeding rates of nontraditional spring triticale culture of two varieties -Dauren and Rossika in the conditions of the North Kazakhstan region.The results of the average yield of spring triticale varieties depending on the sowing period, seeding rates, and meteorological indicators of the growing season of 2019-2021 were provided.It was concluded that the most optimal sowing period is the end of the second ten daysthe third ten days of May, and the optimal seeding rate is in the range of 4.0-5.0 million germinable seeds per hectare.

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)0.000
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 score0.845
Threshold uncertainty score0.167

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Design & Nature and EcodynamicsSame topicAgricultural Productivity and Crop ImprovementFrench-language works237,207