MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076767261 · doi:10.1155/2014/451493

Effects of Deep Tillage and Straw Returning on Soil Microorganism and Enzyme Activities

2014· article· en· W2076767261 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Scientific World JOURNAL · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Canadian institutionsNova Scotia Department of Agriculture
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLoamTillageStrawAgronomyMicroorganismEnvironmental scienceSoil waterSoil scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two field experiments were conducted for two years with the aim of studying the effects of deep tillage and straw returning on soil microorganism and enzyme activity in clay and loam soil. Three treatments, (1) conventional tillage (CT), shallow tillage and straw returning; (2) deep tillage (DT), deep tillage and straw returning; and (3) deep tillage with no straw returning (DNT), were carried out in clay and loam soil. The results showed that deep tillage and straw returning increased the abundance of soil microorganism and most enzyme activities. Deep tillage was more effective for increasing enzyme activities in clay, while straw returning was more effective in loam. Soil microorganism abundance and most enzyme activities decreased with the increase of soil depth. Deep tillage mainly affected soil enzyme activities in loam at the soil depth of 20-30 cm and in clay at the depth of 0-40 cm. Straw returning mainly affected soil microorganism and enzyme activities at the depths of 0-30 cm and 0-40 cm, respectively.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.118
Threshold uncertainty score0.421

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.179 · 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