MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6981795342

Field evaluation of wetting agent efficacy against localized dry spot, soil moisture, and root system growth on creeping bentgrass putting green turf - Norac

2021· other· en· W6981795342 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Atrium (University of Guelph) · 2021
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMetallurgy and Cultural Artifacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubsoilIrrigationWettingDrainageCanopyField experimentPenetration (warfare)Vegetation (pathology)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this project was to determine efficacy of wetting agents on creeping bentgrass putting green turf on a high sand rootzone. The experiment was located on the alternative construction putting green at the GTI, which is a typical industry standard green of this type, with 30 cm of USGA specification rootzone mixture on a graded subsoil with tile drains but no gravel drainage layer. The green has developed hydrophobic layers in previous seasons. Environmental data collected included daily max/min air temperature, irrigation records (turfgrass site manager), rainfall and an initial soil analysis: macro and micronutrients, soil type, particle size, % organic matter. Turf health and uniformity were assessed with canopy reflectance measurements. Significant treatment effects on volumetric water content in the plots were also limited. The canopy reflectance data, which is indicative of photosynthetic activity and plant health, showed some clearer patterns. On the dates when the pattern was at its strongest, the order of NDVI values was: Respond 3 curative > NCF-091 2x preventative > NCF-091 1x preventative, NCF-091 1/2x curative > NCF-091 1/2x preventative, NCF-091 2x curative > Respond 3 preventative > NCF-091 1x curative > Control. Treatment effects on hydrophobicity of the soil as measured by the water drop penetration tests indicated some treatment effects, particularly at the higher rates of NCF-091 and shallower levels in the rootzone, but the background hydrophobicity of the rootzone remains very high and patchy.

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)0.002
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.721
Threshold uncertainty score0.980

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designOther design
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Atrium (University of Guelph)Same topicMetallurgy and Cultural ArtifactsFrench-language works237,207