MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399595133 · doi:10.5539/jas.v16n7p40

New Leafy Greens—Plant Age Effects on Perilla Leaves

2024· article· en· W4399595133 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ramesh Dhakal, Harbans L. Bhardwaj

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNatural Products and Biological Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsPerillaPerilla frutescensHorticultureTransplantingBiologyCropBotanyAgronomySowingFood scienceRaw material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Given that, not much is known about potential yields and nutritional quality of perilla [Perilla frutescens (L.) Britton, Lamiaceae] for production in eastern USA as food, we evaluated fresh leaves of five accessions during 2021. The seeds were germinated in a greenhouse and about 15-day old seedlings were transplanted to the field on black-plastic covered raised beds. Leaves were harvested for analyses at 69 and 85 days after transplanting. Four accessions with green-colored leaves performed better than one with purple leaves. Leaf fresh weights varied from 105 to 279 g per plant whereas number of leaves per plant varied from 368 to 465. Concentrations (g/100 g) of protein, fat, fiber, Ca, P, K, Mg, and S in fresh perilla leaves produced in Virginia contained 17.9, 4.2, 7.3, 1.3, 0.39, 2.0, 0.40, and 0.17, respectively whereas mean values (mg kg-1) for Fe, Cu, Zn, and Mn were 291, 19.9, 40.5, and 56.2. Leaves of perilla produced in Virginia contained considerable more protein (about 4 times more), fiber and fat than literature values demonstrating location differences. Effects of plant age were significant on all plant and leaf physical traits—values from 85 day old plants were significantly higher than those from 69 day old plants. Based on our preliminary results, we have identified PI481701 as the optimal accession. We concluded that perilla is a potential niche crop for Virginia farmers.

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)0.001
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 score0.774
Threshold uncertainty score0.231

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.296 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicNatural Products and Biological ResearchFrench-language works237,207