MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6940857978 · doi:10.1139/cjps2013-098

Review: Improving nitrogen use efficiency of potted chrysanthemum: Strategies and benefits

2013· article· en· W6940857978 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueBioOne Complete (BioOne) · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGreenhouseLeaching (pedology)NutrientCropLife-cycle assessmentHuman fertilizationCrop production

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

MacDonald, W. N., Blom, T. J., Tsujita, M. J. and Shelp, B. J. 2013. Review: Improving nitrogen use efficiency of potted chrysanthemum: Strategies and benefits. Can. J. Plant Sci. 93: 1009-1016. Floricultural greenhouse operations can pose significant environmental risk due to the leaching and runoff of nutrients such as . To face this challenge, Ontario growers have adopted recirculating systems, such as the subirrigated “ebb and flow” system, on benches, troughs and concrete floors. Chrysanthemum (Chrysanthemum morifolium Ramat.) is the most commonly grown floricultural greenhouse crop species in the world and the potted type is well adapted to subirrigation. Reduction of N fertilization towards the end of the crop cycle is generally recommended to improve the shelf life of cut and potted plants, but it is uncertain how this practice influences the N status of the plant and the electrical conductivity of the growing medium. In this review, we discuss N use efficiency and strategies for managing the status of plants, and then propose that this knowledge can help to improve the N use efficiency of potted chrysanthemum grown with subirrigation under greenhouse conditions.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.196
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.025 · 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
GenreReview

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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioOne Complete (BioOne)Same topicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant InteractionsFrench-language works237,207