MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078571491 · doi:10.5539/jas.v7n1p78

Responsiveness of Soil Series in Southwestern Nigeria to Single Super Phosphate Fertilization

2014· article· en· W2078571491 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mercy Omogbohu Anetor, J. A. I. Omueti, Kolapo Olatunji Oluwasemire

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Science and Fertilization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoil waterFertilizerPhosphorusAgronomyRandomized block designPhosphateEnvironmental scienceHuman fertilizationBiologyChemistrySoil science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Application of Single Super Phosphate (SSP) fertilizer in soils with inadequate phosphorus (P) should elicit crop response. However, there is an indication of inconsistent response behaviour to SSP fertilizer in some Nigeria soils despite their low available P. This study identified major soil types in Southwestern Nigeria that are unresponsive to P fertilizer application under screenhouse condition and soil properties that are related to this unresponsive behaviour were determined. Soils from twenty locations in Southwestern Nigeria were selected to evaluate their response to four phosphorus fertilizer rates with a control replicated three times in a factorial arrangement laid out in randomized complete block design. Results indicated that most of the locations responded to initial P application except for Fashola 2 which produced significantly higher maize shoot yield in control soils. There were five other locations where no-response was observed. Multiple regression analysis showed that phosphorus sorption index was related to sand, organic matter and clay. Phosphorus accumulation in soil P reserves may explain the behaviour of the P-unresponsive soils irrespective of their available P levels.

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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicAgricultural Science and FertilizationFrench-language works237,207