MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1935207537 · doi:10.7202/045779ar

Dehydrated pork manure by-product: effect of a chitosan amendment on bacterial community and common scab incidence

2011· article· en· W1935207537 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Julie Roy, Pierre Lafontaine, R. Chabot, Carole Beaulieu

Bibliographic record

VenuePhytoprotection · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Disease Resistance and Genetics
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyBiosolidsPopulationAmendmentFood scienceMicrobiologyMedicineWaste management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chitosan amendment modified the composition of a microbial community associated with dehydrated pork manure by-product. The amended product (biosolid PC) contained a lower number of anaerobic bacteria than the non-amended product (biosolid P). Chitosan also significantly reduced the fungal population. A 16S rRNA gene bank constructed from DNA extracted from the bacterial community associated with both P and PC biosolids revealed that bacterial orders Xanthomonodales , Pseudomonadales , Enterobacteriales , Burkholderiales , Actinomycetales , Bacillales , Clostridiales and Lactobacillales were found in both biosolids. Bacteria from the Stenotrophomonas genus were abundant in both biosolids. However, the addition of chitosan appeared to induce changes in the population of some bacterial genera. For example, clones carrying a 16S rRNA gene corresponding to the Bacillus genus were doubled in biosolid PC. In field trials carried out to test their effect on common scab incidence, biosolids P and PC were applied as potato seed treatment. Biosolid P increased disease incidence by a factor of 1.33 and 2.85 in two independent experiments. However, when chitosan was added to the seed treatment, the stimulating effect of biosolid P on common scab was cancelled out.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.217
Threshold uncertainty score0.185

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhytoprotectionSame topicPlant Disease Resistance and GeneticsFrench-language works237,207