Composting of Crucifer Wastes Using Geotextile Covers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Composting trials were undertaken in 1994 – 996 in Ste. Anne de Bellevue, Quebec, to study the feasibility of using crucifer or carrot residues with sawdust or straw for composting. Geotextile covers were tested for their influence on different parameters of the composting process. Two complete composting cycles from fall to summer were monitored. Measurements were taken for compost temperature, moisture, and leachate. Chemical analyses were performed on compost samples. Phytotoxicity tests were done with compost leachate samples. The results indicated that temperatures of covered compost (CC) decreased more slowly during late fall and early winter than non-covered compost (NC). In addition, CC did not freeze to as great a depth during the winter, and warmed earlier and faster than NC in the spring. The moisture content of CC was significantly lower than in NC at the end of both composting cycles. CC had a higher mineral content than NC in both cycles, and the levels of total N, P, K and NO3 were significantly higher for CC in the second cycle. The carbon/nitrogen (C/N) ratio of CC decreased earlier and reached a lower level at the end of the composting cycle. The quantity of leachate from CC was significantly reduced compared to NC in the second cycle. Compost leachate in both treatments showed a high level of phytotoxicity at the beginning of the composting cycle. However, there was no evidence that compost covers influenced the phytotoxicity in leachate throughout the composting cycle. The use of covers could translate into economic or environmental benefits for most composting operations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".