Development of a urethane-based plant growth substrate for hydroponic greenhouse vegetable production
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2002, the University of Guelph, in collaboration with a company in Ontario, Canada began to develop a urethane-based plant growth substrate (UBS) designed specifically as an alternative for rockwool (RW) in hydroponic greenhouse production. One of the advantages that this new UBS has over previous foam substrates is that it was manufactured with the intent of optimizing plant production in a hydroponic system instead of being reclaimed foam from industrial waste products (Wees and Donnelly, 1992). Between 2002 and 2005, experiments were conducted at the University of Guelph to provide recommendations (e.g. physical and chemical property specifications) to the company for improving the growth substrate. Management and irrigation protocols were also developed for the substrate. Four different generations of UBS were evaluated over this three-year period. At the end of each phase of testing, recommendations were provided to the manufacturer with respect to improving the physical and chemical properties. Plant growth experiments using the final generation of the substrate showed no significant differences between cucumber plants grown in UBS Generation 4 (UBSG4) compared to plants grown in RW with respect to measured growth parameters under appropriate irrigation management.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".