Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An experiment was carried out to determine the influence of different planting dates and media on the growth of kiwi (cv.Hayward) cuttings at Agriculture Research Institute (ARI) Mingora Swat, during 2011.The experiment was laid out in Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) with split plot arrangement in three replications.Planting Dates (20 th Jan, 30 th Jan, 10 th Feb, 20 th Feb and 2 nd March) were allocated to main plots, whereas soil media (Silt+ Garden soil+ FYM) at the rate of 1:1:1, 2:1:1, 1:2:1 and 1:1:2 were assigned to sub plots.Days to 50% sprouting, survival percentage, number of roots plant -1 and plant height were significantly affected by planting dates and soil media.Maximum survival percentage (29.16%),number of root plant -1 (13.31) and plant height (40.42 cm) was recorded for the cuttings planted on 20 th Feb.On the other hand minimum days to 50% sprouting (28.49) were recorded for cuttings planted on 2 nd March.Significant effect of planting media was observed for most of vegetative stages including rooting attributes of Kiwi (cv.Hayward) cuttings.Maximum survival percentage (22.46%),number of roots plant -1 (12.65), plant height (40.15 cm) and minimum days to sprouting (44.17) were recorded for the media Silt: Garden soil: FYM at the ratio of 2:1:1 respectively.Kiwi cuttings planted in the month of February showed good results in most of parameters, rather than month of January and March.In case of planting media most of the root and growth parameters were best in (silt: Garden soil: FYM at the ratio of 2:1:1).Based on the result from the experimental work, it is recommended that Kiwi cuttings should be planted in February in soil media with combination of (silt: Clay: FYM at the ratio of 2:1:1) for better growth and development under the agro climatic condition of Swat.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.993 | 0.961 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it