MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391763464 · doi:10.53555/sfs.v10i1s.2310

Vegetative Multiplication Of Psidium Guajava L. Through Stem Cutting

2023· article· en· W4391763464 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tanmoy Sarkar, Sudip Sengupta, Suprabuddha Kundu, Kaushik Das

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Survey in Fisheries Sciences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBanana Cultivation and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsidiumMultiplication (music)Vegetative reproductionBiologyBotanyMathematicsCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The experiment demonstrated the scope of vegetative multiplication of Psidium guajava L. through stem cutting accrued from three year age plants. Cuttings have been treated with five concentration of auxins viz., control (0%), 0.2%, 0.4%, 0.6% and 0.8% of IBA (Indole-3-butyric acid) solution and rooted within the shade house. Rooted cuttings have been allowed to grow inside the black polybags with 3:1 ratio of soil and farm yard manure respectively for four months to see the surviving capability and initial rooting performance. The experiment showed that the mature stem cutting may be used to propagate the species. The highest root development (80.67%) was recorded within the cuttings treated with 0.6% IBA followed by using 0.8% IBA solution and the lowest in controlled treatment. The highest number root (36.6) was observed in the cuttings treated with 0.8% IBA solution followed by 0.6% IBA and the lowest in the cuttings without IBA treatment (controlled). The maximum survival percentage (74.33%) was recorded in the cuttings treated with 0.6% IBA solution and the minimum (32.33%) was recorded in the control treatment. There was considerable variation in rooting as well as growth of cuttings due to IBA treatment.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.127

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
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 head0.413
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.074 · 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 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Survey in Fisheries SciencesSame topicBanana Cultivation and ResearchFrench-language works237,207