MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112880952 · doi:10.4141/cjss2011-107

Denitrification during the growing season as influenced by long-term application of composted versus fresh feedlot manure

2012· article· en· W2112880952 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
J.J. Miller, Bruce Beasley, C. F. Drury, Bernie J. Zebarth

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Soil Science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
KeywordsFeedlotManureAgronomyEnvironmental scienceCompostGrowing seasonTerm (time)Animal scienceDenitrificationNitrogenBiologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Miller, J. J., Beasley, B. W., Drury, C. F. and Zebarth, B. J. 2012. Denitrification during the growing season as influenced by long-term application of composted versus fresh feedlot manure. Can. J. Soil Sci. 92: 865–882. Application of composted (new practice) rather than fresh (current industry standard) feedlot manure to cropland is increasing in Alberta. We hypothesized that fall application of composted feedlot manure to cropland may lower growing season denitrification losses of nitrogen (N) to the atmosphere compared with fresh feedlot manure because of lower carbon (C) availability from labile C (water-soluble C, acetic acid) and total organic C. Treatments included soil amended with either fresh (FM) or composted manure (CM) containing straw bedding applied annually at 77 Mg ha−1 yr−1 from 1998 to 2009, as well as an unamended control. Surface soil denitrification was measured every 2 wk (May 20 to Sep. 25) for 4 yr (2007–2010) on undisturbed soil cores (0- to 10-cm depth) that were incubated in...

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 score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.098

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations24
Published2012
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Soil ScienceSame topicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsFrench-language works237,207