MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The delta yield procedure for nitrogen fertilisation of maize in South Africa

2006· article· en· W2069543965 on OpenAlexaff
A. A. Nel, Annelies Bloem

Bibliographic record

VenueSouth African Journal of Plant and Soil · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Economics and Policy
Canadian institutionsDepartment of Environment and Conservation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNitrogenYield (engineering)AgronomyFertilisation30-day yieldDeltaMathematicsNitrogen fertilizerEnvironmental scienceGrain yieldBiologyFertilizerChemistryMaterials scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The nitrogen fertilisation requirement for maize in South Africa is generaly estimated through the optimum yield-nitrogen rate procedure. The efficacy of this procedure is questionable. Delta yield, the difference between the maize grain yield at the economic optimum and that of a zero nitrogen fertilised control, was investigated for its ability to estimate the economically optimum nitrogen fertilisation rate for the South African maize producing area. Data from 124 locality-year fertilisation trials scattered over this area were used for the analyses. As in North America, optimum nitrogen rate correlated better with delta yield (R2 = 0.66) than with optimum yield (R2 = 0.51). Consequently, it shows potential to be a trustworthier predictor of the nitrogen fertilisation requirement of maize than the traditional optimum yield-nitrogen rate procedure. The delta yield model (Y = X0.602 where Y is the amount of fertiliser nitrogen and X delta yield, both measured in kg ha−1) was not only uniform for different soil and climatic regions in South Africa, but appears to be similar to that found for five states of the USA.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.165 · 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

Citations6
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSouth African Journal of Plant and SoilSame topicAgricultural Economics and PolicyFrench-language works237,207