MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Reducing the Chemical Fertilizer by Nano Fertilizers in Two Varieties of Potatoes (Solanum tuberosum L.)

2023· article· en· W4366597571 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hussein J. M. Al-Bayati, Ahmed I. Y. Alabade, Safwan M. H. Al-Khashab, Kalid A. G. Malallah

Bibliographic record

VenueIOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPotato Plant Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFertilizerSolanum tuberosumCultivarAgronomyYield (engineering)MathematicsCropField experimentDry matterStarchHorticultureBiologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The study was conducted in the field of vegetables at the Department of Horticulture and Landscape, the University of Mosul, during the spring season of 2021 to demonstrate the possibility of reducing the ground addition of NPK fertilizer by foliar Nano NPK fertilizer with two concentrations (2 and 4 g l -1 ) in two potato cultivars Montreal and Arizona, The study was conducted in split plots system based on of RCBD, cultivars Factor as a main plots, the fertilizer combinations arranged in the subplots with three replicates, and the results were as follows: The treatment of the fertilizer combination 50% ground fertilizer + 4 g l -1 Nano fertilizer in the Arizona variety (T2) significantly increased the number of total and marketing tubers, the fertilizer combination 50% ground fertilizer + 4 g l -1 Nano fertilizer in Montreal variety (T2) significantly increased total and marketing average weight tuber, total and marketing yield of the plant, the whole and marketing yield of tubers (52.866 and 51.088 t ha-1), respectively, the fertilizer combination of 25% ground fertilizer + 4 g l -1 Nano fertilizer increased the rate of dry matter and starch in tubers (18.48 and 12.48%) respectively.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.301
Threshold uncertainty score0.728

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental ScienceSame topicPotato Plant ResearchFrench-language works237,207