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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

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 N 2 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.164
Threshold uncertainty score0.574

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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