MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968256324 · doi:10.4141/s05-119

Seafood processing wastes as nutrient sources for crop production

2006· article· en· W1968256324 on OpenAlexaffvenue
John Macleod, S. Kuo, Trevor Gallant, M. Grimmett

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Soil Science · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHeavy metals in environment
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNutrientEnvironmental scienceLimeCompostWaste managementMineralization (soil science)AgronomyChemistrySoil waterMaterials scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Large quantities of wastes are generated in the processing of seafood such as shellfish, crustaceans and finfish. These materials contain appreciable amounts of plant nutrients which may be useful in cropping programs. Under some conditions the waste materials can be directly applied to soil but in other situations stabilization may be necessary. The method of stabilization will influence the availability of nutrients in various cropping programs. Composting with wood can effectively stabilize the waste but the slow mineralization of organic N can limit the usefulness of the compost. Combining the waste with calcium oxide (CaO) or hydrated lime [Ca(OH) 2 ] can produce a stable material with good nutrient availability. If application rates of various wastes are based on their nutrient content, the nutrient requirement of specific crops, and the heavy metal concentrations, then potential environmental problems associated with excess nutrient and heavy metal loadings can be minimized. Application of these materials to land can effectively supply nutrients to crops and minimize environmental damage due to inappropriate methods of disposal. Key words:Seafood waste, composting, lime stabilization, crop nutrients

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.266
Threshold uncertainty score0.895

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations19
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Soil ScienceSame topicHeavy metals in environmentFrench-language works237,207