MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404369560 · doi:10.70460/jpa.vi.353

Experimental Kūmara Gardens at Whatarangi, Palliser Bay and Robin Hood Bay, Marlborough, New Zealand: Results after 23 Years

2024· article· en· W4404369560 on OpenAlexaff
Foss Leach

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pacific Archaeology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicEcology and Conservation Studies
Canadian institutionsPetroleum Research Newfoundland and Labrador
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBayOceanographyGeographyArchaeologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two experimental gardens of kūmara (Ipomoea batatas), one on each side of Cook Strait, were planted and harvested without fertiliser for a period of 14 and 23 years respectively. The mean annual yield for the garden on the north side of Cook Strait was 10.2 tonne/ha and 7.5 tonne/ha for the southern garden. More than 90% of tubers harvested weigh less than 100g. Yields fluctuated considerably, but did not decline over time. We monitored rainfall, sunshine hours, air and soil temperatures, and several soil chemical characteristics. Some correlations with yield were found, but do not account for the high degree of variation in annual yield. Between plant variation in yield was a similar order of magnitude as annual variation. No correlation was found between seed size and individual plant yield. Several soil nutrients decline significantly over time. Conversely, phosphorus consistently rises over time in both gardens, starting about 10mg/L and rising to c.50 mg/L after 12 years. This is attributed to vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizae (VAM) around the root system of kūmara. A minor sub-project with taro, Colocasia esculenta, shows success on both sides of Cook Strait. Results from the research were modeled to estimate pre-European population size in Palliser Bay

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)0.000
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 score0.114
Threshold uncertainty score0.797

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.217 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pacific ArchaeologySame topicEcology and Conservation StudiesFrench-language works237,207