MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005945358 · doi:10.4141/p99-083

Mixtures of paper mill sludge, wood chips, bark, and peat in substrates for pot-in-pot shade tree production

2000· article· en· W2005945358 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Calvin Chong, Glen P. Lumis

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSeedling growth and survival studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphOntario Forest Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBark (sound)PeatHorticulturePulp and paper industryChemistryEnvironmental scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is little scientific information on substrates for pot-in-pot shade tree production. The objective of this research was to examine various organic-waste-derived substrates for growing shade trees in pot-in-pot systems. Seedling whips of green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica Marsh.), Japanese birch [Betula platyphylla var. japonica (Miq.) Hara], and silver maple (Acer saccharinum L.) were grown for two seasons in 76-L containers. The containers were trickle irrigated and fertilized with controlled-release fertilizers. Treatments included a control nursery mix (50% by volume of pine bark:15% compost:35% topsoil) and nine other mixes classified into three groups: Group I (25, 50 or 75% bark mixed with 50, 25, or 0% wood chips, and 25% paper mill sludge); Group II (25, 50 or 75% bark; 50, 25 or 0% wood chips; and 25% peat); and Group III (25, 50 or 75% peat; 50, 25 or 0% wood chips; and 25% paper mill sludge). In both years, trunk diameters of the three species were greatest with Group III substrates, intermediate with Group II, and least with Group I. Trunk growth was positively correlated with water retention porosity, which ranged from 42 to 57%, 38 to 42%, and 20 to 27% for Groups III, II, and I, respectively. Trunk diameters of Group II and III trees were equal to, or slightly exceeded (10–12%), those of the nursery mix. The nursery mix had a water retention porosity of 49% and generally the highest content of soluble salts. The high-peat (50 and 75%) substrates marginally but consistently produced trees with the largest trunk diameters, although with birch (not the other species) shorter trees resulted as the peat content increased. Key words: In-ground containers, nursery, ornamentals, waste utilization, container culture

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Bench or experimentallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Bench or experimentalhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.179
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

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

Citations20
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicSeedling growth and survival studiesFrench-language works237,207