Bibliographic record
Abstract
Soil testing criteria for copper (Cu) in Manitoba were established in the mid-1980s and were primarily based on growth chamber studies for a range of crop species. A multitude of Cu products and fertilizer placement methods are practiced with insufficient research in support of them. Hence, we attempted to develop agronomic and economic Cu fertilizer management practices for soils of Manitoba through a series of experiments for crop species at two locations with DTPA-extractable Cu levels of 0.12 and 0.25 mg kg-1 soil, respectively. These experiments involved broadcast and incorporation of CuSO4·5H2O (25% Cu), CuEDTA (7% Cu), and a low (<1%) and a high (>60%) water solubility Cu oxysulphate (12.5 and 12% Cu, respectively). Four rates of side-banded liquid CuEDTA (0, 0.28, 0.56 or 1.12 kg Cu ha-1) or seedrow-placed granular products (0, 1.12, 2.24 and 4.48 kg ha-1) as above, were either superimposed or were compared directly with broadcast and incorporation of the same rates. This study confirmed that DTPA extractable Cu levels of less 0.2 mg kg-1 soil are deficient, whereas DTPA-extractable Cu levels of greater than 0.2, but less than 0.4 mg kg-1 are marginal. Broadcast and incorporation of CuSO4·5H2O at rates as low as 2 kg Cu ha-1 or side banding of 0.28 to 0.56 kg Cu ha-1 of liquid CuEDTA provide maximum economic grain yield increases in soils with either deficient or marginal Cu levels. Seedrow applied granular Cu products may provide a maximum agronomic and economic yield increase only in soils with marginal soil Cu levels. Low solubility Cu products do not correct Cu deficiency, whereas CuEDTA, although agronomically equal to CuSO4·5H2O and high solubility oxysulphates, may have a disadvantage due to its high cost. Key words: Deficient, marginal, sulphate, oxysulphate, chelate, seedrow, side band, broadcast
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".