MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006244653 · doi:10.5539/jfr.v3n1p18

Nitrate Content in Potatoes Cultivated in Contaminated Groundwater Areas

2013· article· en· W2006244653 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Alenka Hmelak Gorenjak, Davorin Urih, Tomaž Langerholc, Janja Kristl

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Food Research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPotato Plant Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNitrateGroundwaterEnvironmental scienceAgricultureAgronomyContaminationPesticideHorticultureBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>For a number of years Dravsko polje plain has been subject to intensive farming. Consequently, groundwater in this area is heavily contaminated with nitrates and pesticides. The goal of the study was to determine the quality of potatoes, based on nitrate levels cultivated in an area of contaminated groundwater. We also examined the influence of sustainable agriculture on the quality of crops. Nitrate content was determined using RP/HPLC/UV chromatography. Average nitrate content in potatoes cultivated on Dravsko polje plain was 157 mg/kg (range 18-429 mg/kg), which was not significantly different from the nitrate content in potatoes cultivated outside the contaminated area (mean value 145 mg/kg; range 28-448 mg/kg). In 18% of all samples, nitrate content exceeded maximum recommended levels. In potatoes cultivated via integrated production nitrate content did not significantly differ from the one in conventionally cultivated potatoes. In contrast, organic potatoes contained lower levels of nitrates (range 14-156 mg/kg). Our results also show that individual potato varieties are characterized by different trends of nitrate accumulation. Strict adherence to sustainable agriculture is reflected in lower levels of nitrate in potatoes.</p>

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)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.801
Threshold uncertainty score0.753

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.150
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.168 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Food ResearchSame topicPotato Plant ResearchFrench-language works237,207