Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the past 20 years, the Ornamental Nursery Research Program at the former Horticultural Research Institute of Ontario (now part of the University of Guelph) has been conducting applied research dealing with environmentally friendly and sustainable nursery production practices with emphasis on container production. The use of farm, industrial, and consumer waste by-products as amendments in nursery substrates has been a major focus. The program has evaluated hundreds of potting mixes derived from individual or combined, raw or composted waste by-products including spent mushroom compost, turkey litter compost, paper mill sludge, municipal waste compost, corrugated cardboard, apple pomace, wood chips from pallets, pulverized glass, and various types of tree barks. With few exceptions, all the above waste by-products tested under our cultural conditions provided acceptable to excellent container-growing media, often in amounts exceeding 50% and sometimes up to 100% by volume in No. 2 containers (6 L), even despite initially elevated and potentially toxic contents of soluble salts [expressed in terms of electrical conductivity measured up to 8.9 dS·m -1 in 1 substrate: 2 water (by volume) extracts] in many of the substrates. A key to these successful results is that salts leach quickly from the containers to benign levels (∼1.0 dS·m -1 ) with normal irrigation practices. High initial pH in most waste-derived substrates (up to 8.9) has had little or no discernible effect on growth of a wide assortment of deciduous nursery species. By-products such as paper mill sludge and municipal waste compost with soluble salts contents typically ranging from 0.8 to 2.0 dS·m -1 , also provide acceptable rooting media provided salts are leached before use to values ≤0.2 dS·m -1 . The porosity and aeration characteristics of waste-derived substrates tend to be comparable to, or better than, those of bark.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".