MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034642573 · doi:10.4141/s02-065

Soil inorganic nitrogen content in commercial potato fields in New Brunswick

2003· article· en· W2034642573 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Bernie J. Zebarth, Yves Leclerc, Gilles Moreau, Robert M. Gareau, P. H. Milburn

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Soil Science · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPotato Plant Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgronomySolanum tuberosumSowingFertilizerGrowing seasonNitrogenCultivarAmmonium nitrateEnvironmental scienceChemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Information on inorganic N content in commercial potato fields in Atlantic Canada is limited. Soil inorganic N measurements were collected from 228 commercial potato fields from 1999 to 2001. Soil NO3 content to 30 cm depth at planting ranged from 2 to 124 kg N ha-1, and was generally higher for preceding potato, red clover, or hay crops compared to preceding cereal or other crops. Soil NH4 content to 30 cm depth measured at planting ranged from 3 to 64 kg N ha-1, indicating that both soil NO3 and NH4 need to be measured to assess plant-available soil N content in spring. Soil NO3 content to 30-cm depth at tuber harvest ranged from 3 to 250 kg N ha-1, generally increased with increasing fertilizer N application rate, and differed among different potato cultivars. Soil NO3 content measured to 30-cm depth in spring ranged from 3 to 100% of soil NO3 at harvest in the preceding fall, indicating that highly variable losses of soil NO3 from the root zone occur between growing seasons. Key words: Nitrate, ammonium, Solanum tuberosum L.

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 score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.118

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Citations56
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Soil ScienceSame topicPotato Plant ResearchFrench-language works237,207