MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7015853095

Variability of potato petiole nitrogen in response to nitrogen fertilizer, implications for variable management

2009· other· en· W7015853095 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicKnowledge Management and Technology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUnited States - Israel Binational Agricultural Research and Development Fund
KeywordsNitrogenPetiole (insect anatomy)Variable (mathematics)Yield (engineering)Crop yield
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent increases in the cost of fertilizer nitrogen have prompted producers to assess the \npotential to vary inputs in space and time to produce the highest marketable yield of \npotatoes. A study was conducted from 2005 to 2007 near Brandon, Manitoba Canada, to \nassess the spatial variability of potato yield in upper, middle and lower landforms on a \nsandy loam soil in response to a range of nitrogen fertilizer rates and split application. \nPetiole nitrogen, determined late in the growing season, was correlated with potato yield \nand was used to assess nitrogen sufficiency through the growing season. Petiole nitrogen \nvaried with time during the growing season, from uniform levels in June across all \nfertilizer treatments, to those which varied with fertilizer treatment in July and August. \nFurthermore potato petiole nitrogen was higher in lower landforms during July and \nAugust, where higher total and marketable yields were recorded. The potential for split \napplication of nitrogen in potatoes based on management zones or sensor readings will \nhave to be carefully assessed to account for temporal and spatial variability.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.204
Threshold uncertainty score0.405

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 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
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicKnowledge Management and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207