MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066416028 · doi:10.4141/s99-015

Economics of N and P fertilization to restore wheat yields on three artificially eroded sites in southern Alberta

2000· article· en· W2066416028 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Elwin G. Smith, Yuanying Peng, Mel L. Lerohl, Francis J. Larney

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Soil Science · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTopsoilFertilizerSoil waterAgronomyEnvironmental scienceNutrientHuman fertilizationSoil scienceEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An important economic concept in the evaluation of soil conservation is the ease with which production inputs can be substituted for one another. This concept and economic optimum application rates of N and P fertilizer for wheat grown after fallow were applied to three artificially eroded soils in southern Alberta. Each site had topsoil removed to depths of 0, 10 and 20 cm. Four rates of N (0, 50, 75 and 100 kg ha−1) and three rates of P (0, 11 and 22 kg ha−1) were applied to each eroded depth. There were four replications. Fertilizer N and P did not easily substitute for the loss of topsoil. The economic optimum level of N and P was nearly constant across depths of eroded topsoil. Increases in fertilizer N and P applied to eroded soils were primarily to replace lost soil nutrients. It was not economical to apply inorganic fertilizer on these eroded soils at rates that would restore grain yields. Key words: Eroded soil, economics, inorganic fertilizer, wheat

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 score0.524
Threshold uncertainty score0.946

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.205
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

Citations8
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Soil ScienceSame topicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsFrench-language works237,207