MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7066537061

Influencia de las fases lunares en la producción agrícola

2019· dissertation· en· W7066537061 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuerenati · 2019
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicFungal and yeast genetics research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgricultureQuarter (Canadian coin)Sociology of scientific knowledgeAgricultural productivityProduction (economics)Livestock
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The following engineering report titled as "Influence of the lunar phases in agricultural production" aimed to collect bibliographic information on the effect of lunar phases on agricultural production and study the influence of the moon on the planting, transplanting and harvesting of plants that they grow and fruit above and below the ground, and based on the references, knowledge was analyzed and the following conclusion was reached: Knowledge of the lunar effect in ancestral, social, and agricultural activities has pre-Columbian origins and the vast majority of Farmers believe that effectively. The Moon has direct influence on the productive activities from the point of view of agriculture, livestock and forestry. Popular beliefs and scientific research go hand by hand, on the one hand there is much scientific rigor than the other one. Most of the antecedents coincide when indicating that the sowings of the agricultural crops that grow and fructify above the ground are carried out between two to three days of the phase of the Fourth Crescent and three days after the beginning of the Full Moon. The agricultural crops that grow and fructify under the soil are made between the New Moon and the Growing Quarter phase.

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)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuerenatiSame topicFungal and yeast genetics researchFrench-language works237,207