MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050776823 · doi:10.4000/vertigo.13898

Gestion optimale et intégrée de la fertilité des sols acides du Burundi

2013· article· fr· W2050776823 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Cyrille Hicintuka, Pascal Masilya Mulungula

Bibliographic record

VenueVertigO · 2013
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForestryPhysicsChemistryGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les sols du Burundi sont pauvres à cause de la toxicité aluminique, de la carence en Ca, Mg, en potasse et en soufre ainsi qu’une faible activité microbienne avec une faible capacité de fixation d’azote. Pour pallier à ce genre de problème, des essais visant une combinaison optimale de la fumure organique, minérale et des amendements calcaires ont été conduits à Kabarore et à Rutegama sur le haricot volubile de la variété Umuhoro et Umukutsa et sur la pomme de terre de la variété Ndinamagara sur des sols ferrallitiques. Des résultats confirmant l’effet positif de cette combinaison ont été enregistrés, mais ont toujours laissé des questionnements sur l’effet du chaulage sur de tels types de sols. Dans les sols acides très faiblement toxifiés par l’aluminium, des quantités annuelles de 250 à 500 kg/ha/saison de calcaire peuvent suffire pour saturer le complexe adsorbant, améliorer la fertilité du sol en peu d’années et assurer une meilleure production. Ainsi, la combinaison d’une fumure complète incluant tous les éléments majeurs NPK, du fumier et d’une dose légère de calcaire est utile. La condition sine qua non de l’efficacité d’une telle combinaison est qu’elle soit accompagnée d’une mesure de protection antiérosive pour les sols érodibles.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVertigOSame topicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsFrench-language works237,207