MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394425038 · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.22227171

CPPU and salicylic acid application improved fruit retention, yield, and fruit quality of mango cv. Dusehri

2023· dataset· en· W4394425038 on OpenAlexaff
Naveena Kumara K T, Harminder Singh, Nirmaljit Kaur, Kirandeep Kaur

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2023
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Physiology and Cultivation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaCancerCare Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSalicylic acidYield (engineering)HorticultureQuality (philosophy)BiologyMaterials sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present investigation was aimed at assessing the efficacy of N1-(2-chloro-4-pyridyl)-N3-phenylurea (CPPU) and salicylic acid on fruit retention, yield, and quality of mango cv. Dusehri. The research was carried out at the Department of Fruit Science, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, India. The experiment was conducted simultaneously at two different locations for two cropping seasons during 2019–20 and 2020–21. Fruit retention enhancing treatments of 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) (@20 ppm), CPPU (@5, 10, and 15 ppm), and salicylic acid (@100, 200, and 300 ppm) were applied at pea stage of fruit growth. Experimental plants were observed for various reproductive, yield, and fruit quality parameters. The results indicated that foliar application of CPPU (T6-CPPU @10 ppm) significantly enhanced fruit retention during marble and harvest stages at both locations in both seasons. The novel growth hormone also improved fruit yield, fruit weight, and fruit quality in mango cv. Dusehri. Foliar applied salicylic acid recorded intermediate values for observed parameters. Therefore, foliar application of CPPU can be considered as a better alternative to 2,4-D for fruit drop management of mango.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.182 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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 venueFigshareSame topicPlant Physiology and Cultivation StudiesFrench-language works237,207