MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113755760 · doi:10.4141/cjps09123

Re-visiting use of <i>Penicillium bilaii</i> with phosphorus fertilization of hard red spring wheat

2010· article· en· W2113755760 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
R. E. Karamanos, N.A. Flore, J.T. Harapiak

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Management and Crop Yield
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFertilizerPhosphorusHuman fertilizationAgronomyPenicilliumYield (engineering)Organic matterWinter wheatSpring (device)Animal scienceBiologyChemistryBotanyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Penicillium bilaii is a fungus that lives in association with plant roots and has been shown to increase phosphorus (P) solubility and uptake by some crops. A series of 47 experiments with hard red spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) that were carried out in the three prairie provinces between 1989 and 1995 and included treatment with P. bilaii as a main plot (with or without) and four rates of fertilizer P (0, 4.4, 8.7 and 13.1 kg P ha-1) as subplots were statistically analyzed to ascertain whether use of P. bilaii resulted in increases in both yield and P uptake by wheat. Of the 47 experiments, response to fertilizer P was obtained in 33 experiments and to P. bilaii in 14, in five of which the response was positive and nine resulted in yield decreases. These responses could not be attributed either to extractable P soil concentration, soil organic matter (SOM) or texture, or weather conditions and are considered random events. Overall, P uptake was a function of fertilizer P rate only.Key words: Seed-treatment, seed yield, P uptake, P use efficiency

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)0.001
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.161 · 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

Citations43
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicSoil Management and Crop YieldFrench-language works237,207