Evaluation methods for a combined research and extension program used to address starter phosphorus fertilizer use for corn in New York
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ketterings, Q. M., Czymmek, K. J. and Swink, S. N. 2011. Evaluation methods for a combined research and extension program used to address starter phosphorus fertilizer use for corn in New York. Can. J. Soil Sci. 91: 467–477. Since there is no substitute for phosphorus (P), judicious use of P fertilizer is needed to protect water quality, world P reserves and farm economics. In 2001–2003, 78 on-farm corn (Zea mays L.) P trials were conducted on New York State (NY) dairy farms as part of a statewide, integrated (research and extension), outcome-focused project. The data showed fertilizer P could be eliminated or reduced to less than 28 kg P2O5 ha−1 for fields very high or high in soil test P, respectively. We conducted: (1) case study P fertilizer management evaluations using 30 NY, and (2) a producer survey using a postcard evaluation tool, to determine project outcome potential and farmer intent to change P management. The two impact evaluations showed (1) P use could be reduced to 17 kg of P2O5 ha−1 or less with soil-test based decision making, and (2) 81% of producers were likely to change P use in future years. Statewide P fertilizer sales decreased from 12 603 Mg (8.6 kg ha−1) in 2000 to 10 092 tons (6.8 kg ha−1) in 2007, a 20% reduction in P use. These results reflect the effectiveness of the impact evaluation tools and of outcome-based projects where extension and research are integrated and farmers and farm advisors are key participants in the design and implementation of the project.
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 | 0.099 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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".