Refine ·

Claim type

Research area

Polarity

Statistics

More filters

Clear filters
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

No remarkable differences existed between the NIRS calibration models.

Taxon
legume–grass mixturese0
Outcome
no remarkable differences between the modelse1
Comparator
the modelse1

Verbatim

e0

“Legume content in legume–grass mixtures is a key parameter for the quantification of N 2 fixation, forage, and diet quality”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–123
e1

“Prediction errors were between 2.2 and 4.0%, and coefficients of determination of all validations were greater than 99% so that no remarkable differences between the models existed”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1743–1923

Title

Development of Near Infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy Calibrations to Estimate Legume Content of Multispecies Legume–Grass Mixtures

F. Locher; H. Heuwinkel; R. Gutser; et al. Agronomy Journal 2005. doi:10.2134/agronj2005.0011

Other claims from this paper (4)
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Higher fertilization had no significant effect on panicle number or grain count per panicle.

Treatment
higher application levelse0
Outcome
panicle number or grain count per paniclee0
Direction
no significant effecte0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“Fertilization results showed that higher application levels significantly increased the grain-filling rate and thousand-grain weight (both p < 0.001), but had no significant effect on panicle number or grain count per panicle (p > 0.05).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1120–1357
e7

“on a rice field”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 612–627

Title

Performance Evaluation of a UAV-Based Graded Precision Spraying System: Analysis of Spray Accuracy, Response Errors, and Field Efficacy

Yang Lyu; Seung-Hwa Yu; Chun-Gu Lee; et al. Agriculture 2025. doi:10.3390/agriculture15192070

Other claims from this paper (6)
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

No obvious difference was found among the five methods of converting crop yields.

Taxon
cropse0
Outcome
obvious differencee1
Comparator
5 methods of convertinge2
Setting
nationwidee3

Verbatim

e0

“When grading the agricultural land,we need to convert different crops to compare them on the same base”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 11–113
e1

“we come to the conclusion that there is no obvious difference among different,but different errors are discovered due to different regions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 334–472
e2

“Having summed up the present used 5 methods of converting”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 187–244
e3

“analyzing the converted yields in different areas picked randomly nationwide”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 249–325

Title

The Comparing of Various Methods of Calculate β in Arable Land Grading

Wu Yupeng Anhui nongye kexue 2007

Other claims from this paper (3)
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Combined fitting gave prediction accuracy similar to cultivar fitting and baseline models across splits and calibration sizes.

Taxon
almond, six apricot and six sweet cherrye1
Outcome
prediction accuracye0
Direction
failed to achieve highere0
Qualifier
across the data splits and calibration dataset sizese0
Comparator
the cultivar-fit and the baseline approache0

Verbatim

e0

“The combined-fit model failed to achieve higher prediction accuracy compared to the cultivar-fit and the baseline approach, as evidenced by similar root mean square errors across the data splits and calibration dataset sizes.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 854–1079
e1

“nine almond, six apricot and six sweet cherry cultivars”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 730–785

Title

Combining temperate fruit tree cultivars to fit spring phenology models

Lars Caspersen; Katja Schiffers; Katherine Jarvis-Shean; et al. International Journal of Biometeorology 2026. doi:10.1007/s00484-025-03068-2

Other claims from this paper (3)
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

On fifty grain yield maps, automated AYCE cleaning did not differ significantly from interactive cleaning by an expert user for field mean yield, yield standard deviation and number of remaining yield observations.

Outcome
field mean yield, yield standard deviation, and number of yield observations remaining after cleaninge1
Qualifier
not significantly differente1
Comparator
interactive cleaning by an expert usere1

Verbatim

e1

“On a test set of fifty grain yield maps, AYCE cleaning was not significantly different than interactive cleaning by an expert user when examining field mean yield, yield standard deviation, and number of yield observations remaining after cleaning”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1017–1264

Title

Yield Editor 2.0: Software for Automated Removal of Yield Map Errors

Kenneth A Sudduth; Scott T Drummond; D Brenton Myers 2012 Dallas, Texas, July 29 - August 1, 2012 2012. doi:10.13031/2013.41893

Other claims from this paper (2)
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The reference-based GBS-SNP-CROP behaved similarly to TASSEL-GBS in the number of SNPs called.

Taxon
kiwiberrye1
Treatment
published reference genome of a related diploid species (A. chinensis)e5
Outcome
number of SNPs callede4
Direction
no_changeinferrede4
Comparator
TASSEL-GBSe4

Verbatim

e1

“GBS library of 48 accessions of tetraploid kiwiberry (Actinidia arguta)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1082–1153
e4

“the reference-based version of GBS-SNP-CROP behaved similarly to TASSEL-GBS in terms of the number of SNPs called but had an improved read depth distribution and fewer genotyping errors”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1514–1699
e5

“Using the published reference genome of a related diploid species (A. chinensis)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1432–1512

Title

GBS-SNP-CROP: a reference-optional pipeline for SNP discovery and plant germplasm characterization using variable length, paired-end genotyping-by-sequencing data

Arthur T. O. Melo; Radhika Bartaula; Iago Hale BMC Bioinformatics 2016. doi:10.1186/s12859-016-0879-y

Other claims from this paper (7)

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.