MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162435778 · doi:10.4141/cjss07119

Estimation de la fertilité potentielle des ferralsols par la couleur

2009· article· en· W2162435778 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Brahima Koné, S. Diatta, Osuji Sylvester, G. Yoro, Camara Maméri, Dzeufiet Djomeni Paul Désiré, A. Ayemou

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Soil Science · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBanana Cultivation and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoil waterSoil fertilityHueSoil sciencePhosphorusEnvironmental scienceAgronomyChemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A farmer-friendly method of determining the most suitable cultivation soils would help in transferring new integrated soil management technologies. The potential for using soil color (Munsell data) was tested by physico-chemical analysis of 1028 ferrallitic soil samples from 289 profiles unequally allocated above 7 deg N in Côte d’Ivoire. Soil hue variations in depth and along the toposequence revealed the existence of vertical and lateral gradients of soil hue. The relative contribution of the different descriptors (clay, sand, carbon, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, potassium, magnesium and calcium) to the three functions extracted using a discriminant analysis to differentiate the four groups of soils with different hues was evaluated as well as the analysis of variance to determine the possible groups number for each one of the descriptors. Differences between physico-chemical components of red (2.5YR and 5YR) and yellow (7.5YR and 10YR) soils were determined, especially for P, Mg and K in extension. A decreasing gradient of inherent soil fertility indicators with an increasing yellowness in soil hue was revealed using multiple regression models. The soils 2.5YR and 5YR were therefore deemed more appropriate for stable and sustainable agriculture.Key words: Hue, ferralsols, fertility, soil use

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.958
Threshold uncertainty score0.562

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 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

Citations16
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Soil ScienceSame topicBanana Cultivation and ResearchFrench-language works237,207