MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Assessment on Ecological Safety of Farmland Fertilization of China

2014· article· en· W2065427772 on OpenAlexafffund
Qin Pu Liu, Yu Guo, John P. Giesy

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvanced materials research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Quality and Pollution
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNanjing UniversityState Administration of Foreign Experts AffairsChinese Academy of SciencesCanada Research ChairsState Key Laboratory in Marine Pollution
KeywordsChinaHuman fertilizationAgricultureHazardEnvironmental scienceEcologyGeographyEnvironmental protectionAgronomyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Here is presented the concepts of Fertilization Ecological Hazard Index (FEHI) and Fertilization Ecological Safety Threshold (FEST). These concepts have been used to develop models that assess the hazards posed by fertilization with inorganic fertilizers on ecological environments in China. Based on these models, there were 11 regions, most of which are located in Western China, slightly at risk from over-fertilization, while 14 regions located in central or eastern China were at a moderate hazard from overuse of fertilizers. Six regions in western China were found at ecological safety of environment because of small amounts of fertilizers used in these regions. Ecological safety of environment decreased along the gradient from northwest to southeast by fertilization. There were several factors that influence FEHI. It is obligatory for local governments to offer training to guide reasonable uses of fertilization. It would be prudent for China to establish laws to protect soils, especially to regulate the use of fertilizers in agriculture.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.339 · 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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvanced materials researchSame topicEnvironmental Quality and PollutionFrench-language works237,207