Surface application of cement kiln dust and lime to forages: Effect on soil pH
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This 2-yr field trial on forage plots compared the relative effectiveness of surface applications of cement kiln dust (CKD) to lime for raising soil pH. Seven soil treatments, in four blocks, were established at four low pH sites, which were: (1) a check plot; (2) lime at the recommended application (L), based on soil test for each site; (3) lime at 1.5 × L; (4) CKD at L; (5 ) CKD at 1.5 ( L; (6) CKD at an equivalent to lime basis; and (7) CKD applied at 1.5 times the equivalent to lime basis, where equivalence was based on CKD’s apparent neutralizing value equal to 75% that of lime. Soil pH was determined before applications and was monitored afterwards for two growing seasons. Two months after surface application, the CKD increased soil pH more than lime, despite its apparent neutralizing value being only 75% that of lime. Effects were greater closer to the soil surface and trends persisted through the following year. The CKD appears to be a quick-acting lime substitute due to its fineness (more than 99% passed through 100-mesh compared with 58% of lime). Key words: Forage, lime, cement kiln dust, pH
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".