MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393228829 · doi:10.53555/sfs.v8i3.2379

Emerging Growth Inducers And Bioagent During The Seedling Of Chickpea Against Fusarium Oxysporum f. sp. ciceri

2022· article· en· W4393228829 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shreya Brohma, Sandeep Kumar, Neha Saini, Rajendra Prasad

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Survey in Fisheries Sciences · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Genetic and Mutation Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeedlingFusarium oxysporumBiologyGerminationInducerAgronomySeed treatmentHorticulture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this present study, studies on chickpea wilt using of different chemical inducers and bio-control agents the Fusarium oxysprum f. sp. ciceri. The use of chemical inducers in PD broth media and pro-tray amended (SA, OA and AA) with concentrations (100 and 200 ppm). Use of plant defense inducers is a newer approach and can prove to be a beneficial alternative and therefore this study was conducted to know the efficacy of chemical inducers and bio control agents. The experiments were conducted in both in vitro as well as in portray method. The result revealed that maximum growth of bio-agent was recorded (30.60 mm) in T1 while the pathogen growth (40.73 mm) and mycelial percent inhibition (38.89%) in T1. In T. viride maximum wet weight of fungal mat was recorded in T10 (9.25 g) in case of T. harzianum was shown in T8 (6.16 g). The maximum dry weight of T. viride fungal mat was found in T2 (2.05 g) and in case of T. harzianum (1.79 g). Tested chemical inducers and bioagents on poo-tray method after ten days of sowing, the maximum average number of healthy seedlings were recorded in T2 (27.00).  

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.482

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.139 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Survey in Fisheries SciencesSame topicPlant Genetic and Mutation StudiesFrench-language works237,207