Fertilidade química de um substrato tratado com lodo de esgoto e composto de resíduos domésticos
Bibliographic record
Abstract
O aproveitamento de resíduos urbanos como fontes de matéria orgânica e nutrientes contribui para diminuir a pressão das sociedades modernas sobre o meio ambiente. Por outro lado, a incorporação de matéria orgânica é um meio de se criarem condições edáficas para o estabelecimento de plantas em solos degradados e substratos expostos. Este trabalho visou avaliar a fertilidade e a cobertura vegetal (Paspalum notatum var. saurae Parodi) de um substrato exposto à superfície, tratado com doses crescentes (0 - 76 Mg ha-1, base seca) de lodo de esgoto ou composto de resíduos domésticos. Os resultados indicam que o lodo de esgoto foi capaz de aumentar a CTC e as concentrações de N, P e Zn no substrato enquanto não houve incrementos significativos desses nutrientes no substrato tratado com o composto de resíduos domésticos. A cobertura vegetal do substrato variou de 68 a 96% nos tratamentos com lodo (resposta assintótica) e entre 22 e 67% nos tratamentos com composto (resposta linear), de acordo com a dose aplicada. Valores de CTC e concentrações de N, P e Zn explicaram 94% da variação da cobertura vegetal sobre a superfície da área.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".