MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162014774 · doi:10.1080/01904160500311169

Heavy Metal Contamination in Peach Trees Irrigated with Water from a Heavily Polluted Creek

2005· article· en· W2162014774 on OpenAlexfundno aff
H. Başar, Cumhur Aydınalp

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Plant Nutrition · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHeavy metals in environment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
KeywordsSoil waterCadmiumContaminationManganeseZincChromiumChemistryEnvironmental chemistryCultivarMetalCobaltSoil contaminationPollutionCopperHorticultureAgronomyEnvironmental scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study was conducted to characterize the heavy metal contamination in the soils of peach orchards irrigated with water from Nilüfer creek, which is heavily polluted by industrial and municipal wastes. Twenty-one peach orchards with 3 different cultivars in 7 orchards each located along Nilüfer creek were monitored in the experiment. To determine levels of pollution, soils and aboveground parts of the trees were sampled and analyzed for iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), zinc (Zn), copper (Cu), cobalt (Co), nickel (Ni), chromium (Cr), lead (Pb), and cadmium (Cd). Total amounts of Ni and Cr were found to be at the excessive levels in soils. Extractable Ni concentration decreased with increasing pH and CaCO3 content in soils. Leaf metal contents were generally at tolerable levels, but Ni and Pb accumulated to toxic levels in different parts of the fruit (flesh and peel). Except for Fe and Ni, plant concentrations of the metals did not correlate with their total and DTPA-extractable concentrations in the soils. There was no significant difference among the cultivars in accumulation of heavy metals.

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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations8
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Plant NutritionSame topicHeavy metals in environmentFrench-language works237,207