MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6996112791

Recovering from Hail

2021· other· en· W6996112791 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity Library (University of Saskatchewan) · 2021
Typeother
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in cancer detection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCropYield (engineering)CanopyAgricultureCrop yieldFungicideNutrient
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hailstorms can be responsible for significant economic loss to the agricultural sector in Alberta. Foliar applications of certain fungicides and nutrient blends have been advocated to promote recovery and yield of hail-damaged crops. Proper understanding of different crop- and hail-related factors is required for an accurate assessment of hail damage to crops, and for evaluations of hail-recovery product claims. This study was undertaken at three locations in Alberta during three growing seasons (2016-18) to determine the effect(s) of two levels of simulated hail severity at three different crop developmental stages including early vegetative, middle vegetative and reproductive stages. Plant growth, yield and grain quality parameters of wheat, field pea and dry bean crops were measured. Simulated hail damage led to reductions in crop height, biomass, canopy cover, grain yield and kernel weight of all three crops. Timing of simulated hail was a critical factor influencing the extent of crop damage with early damage to vegetative stages having less effect on yield compared to damage at later reproductive stages. This trend was especially evident in wheat which did not show significant reduction in yield from the damage at early tillering stages but had significant yield loss with damage at flowering. Foliar applications of fungicides and nutrient blends did not significantly improve crop recovery, grain yield or kernel weight for any of the crops in this study, and thus, their use for the recovery of hail-affected wheat, field pea and dry bean was not supported by the results of this study. Link to Video Presentation: https://youtu.be/vgUDIufNwPo

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.207
Threshold uncertainty score0.411

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.154
Teacher spread0.146 · 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
GenreOther

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 venueUniversity Library (University of Saskatchewan)Same topicAI in cancer detectionFrench-language works237,207