View: List Claim type Research area Organism Taxon as written Decade Paper Method / resource observed original result measured Claim · model-written summary
Field-vine estimation methods differed by 15% on average.
Outcomeestimation methods differed e0 Verbatim
e0 “estimation methods differed on average by 15% ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1277–1322 t0 “grapevines ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 133–143 Other claims from this paper (12) Method / resource observed original result measured Claim · model-written summary
Marker effect estimation methods differed little in prediction of entry genetic value.
Outcomeprediction of entry genetic value e0 DirectionLittle difference e0 Comparatormarker effect estimation methods e0 Verbatim
e0 “Little difference was found between marker effect estimation methods in terms of prediction of entry genetic value ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 815–929 t0 “Barley ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 95–101 Other claims from this paper (5) Method / resource observed original result measured Claim · model-written summary
Sample sizes required for thrips density estimation on viburnum differed between sampling methods .
Interactorgreenhouse thrips e0 pest Outcomesample sizes required for density estimation e1 Qualifierat both levels of precision e1 Comparatorbetween methods e1 Verbatim
e0 “A leaf sampling method was used to estimate the density of greenhouse thrips on a viburnum hedge ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 197–293 e1 “The sample sizes required for density estimation at both levels of precision differed between methods ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 521–622 Observation observed original result measured Claim · model-written summary
Repeatability estimates differed across crops, traits and estimation methods .
Outcomerepeatability coefficients e1 Qualifiervaried among crops, traits and estimation methods e1 Not reported Direction
Verbatim
e0 “Bertholletia excelsa ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 86–106 e1 “Estimates of repeatability coefficients varied among crops, traits and estimation methods . ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 761–851 Other claims from this paper (4) Observation observed original result measured Claim · model-written summary
Critical potassium concentrations differed by plant part and estimation method.
Organ / stageplant parts e0 Outcomecritical concentrations e0 Verbatim
e0 “The critical concentrations varied between plant parts and among the methods used. ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1111–1193 e1 “faba bean ( Vicia faba L. cv. Fiord) and chickpea ( Cicer arietinum L. T1587) ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 123–200 Other claims from this paper (12) Observation observed original result measured Claim · model-written summary
The GWF estimated by FBM and T1M differed by up to 3961 %.
OutcomeGWFs estimated by FBM and T1M e4 Verbatim
e4 “While a difference of up to 3961 % was observed between GWFs estimated by FBM and T1M ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1559–1644 e0 “applied three different methods for estimating the GWF during the rice production process ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 255–344 Other claims from this paper (12) Recommendation author interpretation original result basis n/a Claim · model-written summary
Methods must be evaluated for each series of soils before they are compared.
Outcomemethods must be evaluated for each series of soils e6 Verbatim
e6 “This clearly indicates that methods must be evaluated for each series of soils to be compared ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1405–1498 e1 “Correlation coefficients between values produced and phosphate uptake during a twomonth period from 16 soils (pH range 3.85 to 7.85) by Urtica dioica L., a phosphate-sensitive plant, differed markedly ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 377–577 Other claims from this paper (5) Lexical search (BM25). All words must match; if nothing does, any word. Organism names also match every spelling of the same organism. No semantic search yet.