MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105719137 · doi:10.22004/ag.econ.34183

An Innovative Approach for Modeling Crop Yield Response to Fertilizer Nutrients

2006· preprint· en· W2105719137 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bharat Mani Upadhyay, Elwin G. Smith, M. Lucila Favret

Bibliographic record

VenueAgEcon Search (University of Minnesota, USA) · 2006
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetics and Plant Breeding
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCanolaFertilizerAgronomyYield (engineering)MathematicsNitrogenEnvironmental scienceNitrogen fertilizerCropCrop yieldBiologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fertilizer recommendations seldom account for agro-climatic conditions, which are important factors that determine the response to fertilizer and the optimal rate of fertilizer. The nitrogen fertilizer response to open pollinated and hybrid canola types will also impact optimal nitrogen rates. This study used quantile regression to model canola yield response to nitrogen fertilizer. Quantile regression can apply different weights to the residuals, facilitating a response estimation where the agro-climatic conditions are not limiting and the yield response is due to the variable of interest. The economically optimal levels of fertilizers were calculated using the proposed and the conventional least squares procedures of the two canola types in western Canada. Results showed that the effects of nitrogen fertilizer on yield depended on the canola type and on the estimation procedure. Optimal levels of nitrogen for open-pollinated canola were estimated as 91, 115, and 134 kg ha-1 for severe, moderate and low levels of agro-climatic constraints. Hybrid had a higher yield potential, and also required more nitrogen fertilizer (137, 142, and 158 kg ha-1). Unlike conventional approach, proposed approach could benefit producer by recommending less (more) fertilizer when the crop response to fertilizer is expected to be low (high) due to agro-climatic conditions.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.793
Threshold uncertainty score0.624

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.146 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAgEcon Search (University of Minnesota, USA)Same topicGenetics and Plant BreedingFrench-language works237,207