MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096824240 · doi:10.17221/226/2010-pse

Microbiological characterization of land set-aside before and after Roundup desiccation

2011· article· en· W2096824240 on OpenAlexaff
M. Růžková, L. Růžek, K. Voříšek, Petr Vráblík, D. Musilová

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Soil and Environment · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersRECETOX Přírodovědecké Fakulty Masarykovy UniverzityMasarykova Univerzita
KeywordsAgronomyBiomass (ecology)RobiniaLolium multiflorumOrganic matterMonocultureDesiccationBiologyEnvironmental scienceBotanyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Luvic chernozem (set-aside from 1996) was evaluated. The first period, before Roundup desiccation (2002-2003), was characterized by black, spontaneous and controlled fallows (mowed with the removal of plant biomass or mulched); the following period (2003-2004) by black fallow with repeated Roundup applications; and the last period (2004-2006) involved re-grassing by a mowed Lolium multiflorum Lam. monoculture. The characterization included microbial biomass, available organic carbon, basal respiration, metabolic quotient, biomass-specific available organic carbon, arylsulfatase activity, soil organic matter carbon and total nitrogen. Mulching of pure cultures of grasses and legumes contributed to a high soil organic matter accumulation. Repeated Roundup desiccation caused a strong (highly significant) decrease of arylsulfatase activity (-28%), however highly significant increase of microbial biomass (+69%) and nitrate-nitrogen (+86%) were determined. The subsequent re-grassing compensated the changes described. The soil biological properties were best preserved on mulched fallow with Lotus corniculatus L. and Festuca pratensis L., also in regard to contamination with weeds.

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 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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.239
Threshold uncertainty score0.115

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 head0.157
Teacher spread0.142 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations5
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlant Soil and EnvironmentSame topicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsFrench-language works237,207