MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028002318 · doi:10.4141/p02-182

Root characterization of three forage species grown in southwestern Uruguay

2003· article· en· W2028002318 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Roberta Gentile, Daniel Martino, Martin H. Entz

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Management and Crop Yield
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCichoriumAgronomyMedicago sativaForagePerennial plantFestuca arundinaceaSubsoilBiomass (ecology)BiologyRoot systemPoaceaeSoil water

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Forage crops are widely grown in the mixed cropping system of southwestern Uruguay. There is renewed interest in the use of forages for soil improvement and carbon sequestration, but the root growth of forages has received little study. Field observations were made of the root systems of tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea Schreb.), alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) and chicory (Cichorium intybus L.). Soil core samples were used to measure root count and biomass distributions to a depth of 1 m. Roots were detected to a depth of 1 m for all species, although half of the root biomass for each species was located in the top 20 cm of the soil. The distribution of root counts differed with the greatest number of root axes found above a depth of 20 cm for tall fescue and chicory, and below 20 cm for alfalfa. Key words: Carbon sequestration, perennial forages, subsoil, grasslands

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.147

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.178
Teacher spread0.156 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations16
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicSoil Management and Crop YieldFrench-language works237,207