Comparison of Soil Testing Methods for Plant Available Phosphate
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most test methods for plant available soil phosphate are based on the extraction with a chemical solution. The objective of this study is to evaluate available phosphate of various tests at different soil phosphate levels. Two experiments were conducted as follows: i) Extracting capacities of soil phosphate tests - Mehlich III, Mehlich II, Bray I, Olsen, Kelowna, and Modified Lancaster(Mod. Lancaster) - were compared with that of Lancaster test for the soils collected from 32 paddy and 27 upland fields with various soil chemical properties. ii) Field trials on comparing to phosphate uptake by plant were accomplished by cultivating rice and corn plants in the pots filled with the soils. Available phosphate of Lancaster test was significantly correlated with those of Mehlich III, Mehlich II, Bray I, Olsen, Kelowna, and Mod. Lancaster. In upland soils, available phosphates of all the tests were curvilinearly regressed with phosphate uptake by corn. The determination coefficients (<TEX>$R^2$</TEX>) of the regression equation between available phosphate in soils and phosphate uptake by plants were ranged from 0.861 (Mehlich III) to 0.741 (Olsen). In paddy soils, the available phosphate measured by Mehlich III and Lancaster was significantly correlated with phosphate uptake by rice. In conclusion, Lancaster and Mehlich III tests could be used for predicting available phosphate in upland and paddy soils.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it