MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034856798 · doi:10.1094/cm-2004-0301-04-rv

Benefits of Inoculating Legume Crops with Rhizobia in the Northern Great Plains

2004· article· en· W2034856798 on OpenAlexafffund
J. Kevin Vessey

Bibliographic record

VenueCrop Management · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLegume Nitrogen Fixing Symbiosis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRhizobiaLegumeAgronomyInoculationBiologyForageCropPopulationYield (engineering)Nitrogen fixationHorticulture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inoculation of forage and grain legumes with rhizobia is an important process to maximize biological N2 fixation capacity in these crops. Inoculation has the potential of increasing dry matter yield, N yield, and residual N levels. However, yield responses to inoculation are not universal in the northern Great Plains region. In fields that have previously grown the same grain legume crop (i.e., contain an endemic rhizobial population in the soil), positive yield responses occur from one‐third to one‐half of the time. Yield responses to inoculation are dependent upon many factors, but legume species and soil N levels prior to seeding are two important factors. However, given the modest cost of inoculation compared to the potential agronomic benefits, producers are well advised to seriously consider inoculation of their legume crops in all circumstances.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.183 · 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

Citations40
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCrop ManagementSame topicLegume Nitrogen Fixing SymbiosisFrench-language works237,207