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.
estimation 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) Observation observed original result measured Claim · model-written summary
Repeatability estimates differed across crops, traits and estimation methods .
repeatability coefficients e1 varied 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) Method / resource observed original result measured Claim · model-written summary
Marker effect estimation methods differed little in prediction of entry genetic value.
prediction of entry genetic value e0 Little difference e0 marker 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 .
greenhouse thrips e0 pest sample sizes required for density estimation e1 at both levels of precision e1 between 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 Method / resource observed original result measured Claim · model-written summary
Commonly used cover- estimation methods differed greatly in accuracy, variability and efficiency.
accuracy, variability, and efficiency e0 differ greatly e0 commonly used methods e0 Verbatim
e0 “the commonly used methods differ greatly in their accuracy, variability, and efficiency ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 487–574 t0 “simulated grassland sward ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 59–84 Other claims from this paper (1) Method / resource observed original result measured Claim · model-written summary
The ordering of thresholding methods by length estimation error differed from that by projected-area accuracy.
length estimation error e0 a little different order of accuracy e0 Verbatim
e0 “the length estimation error points out a little different order of accuracy ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 855–930 t0 “roots of cork oak (Quercus suber L.) ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 684–720 Other claims from this paper (1) Method / resource observed original result measured Claim · model-written summary
The methods differed in estimated resistance level and had upper and lower measurement limits.
level of estimation of resistance is different e0 two methods compared e0 Verbatim
e0 “the level of estimation of resistance is different between two methods compared, and that there are upper and lower limits of measurable range in all the methods . ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 225–387 e1 “blast resistance of rice varieties ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 28–62 Other claims from this paper (7) Method / resource observed original result measured Claim · model-written summary
Accurate population estimation differed when insect populations were low.
accurate population estimates e0 insect populations were low e0 Verbatim
e0 “Making accurate population estimates was found to be different when insect populations were low ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 472–567 t0 “cotton ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 22–28 Other claims from this paper (3) Method / resource observed original result measured Claim · model-written summary
Other broad-sense heritability methods differed from these and from one another.
difference with these methods e0 these methods e0 Verbatim
t0 “Cotton Crosses ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 125–139 e0 “the others methods of BSH had difference with these methods and with from each other ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1565–1649 Other claims from this paper (16) Observation observed original result measured Claim · model-written summary
Critical potassium concentrations differed by plant part and estimation method.
plant parts e0 critical 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) 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.
Vitis
Bertholletia excelsa.jpg?width=60){kind=small}
Hordeum vulgare
Viburnum
Quercus suber
Oryza sativa
Gossypium hirsutum
Vicia faba