MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166692989 · doi:10.1080/01904160500324717

Use of Ion-Exchange Membrane to Assess Nitrogen-Supply Power of Soils

2005· article· en· W2166692989 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Pei‐Yuan Qian, J.J. Schoenau

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Plant Nutrition · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicClay minerals and soil interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersMinistry of Agriculture - Saskatchewan
KeywordsSoil waterNitrogenEnvironmental scienceChemistryIonIon exchangeEnvironmental chemistryAgronomySoil scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Soil nitrogen-supply power (NSP), including nitrogen (N) mineralized from organic matter, for crop growth is an important criterion in evaluating soil quality. Ion-exchange membranes in the form of plant root simulator (PRS) probes were used to measure ammonium and nitrate release rates as a measure of NSP in 54 Saskatchewan soils with contrasting pedogenic and management histories. Two incubation systems (aerobic and anaerobic), with ion-exchange membrane probes placed in situ, were conducted to predict NSP. The 54 soil samples were also used in two growth-chamber studies to assess patterns in plant N uptake by canola. Soil type had a profound influence on available N-supply rates, with soils of higher organic-matter content due to climatic conditions, slope position, and past management having higher NSP values. Good relationships (R2 = 0.54 and 0.69) between NSP and canola N uptake were observed. The N-supply rate values used as an index of NSP as predicted by two-week aerobic incubation for Brown, Dark Brown, and Black soils in Saskatchewan were 200–550, 550–1100, and > 1100 μg nitrate-N/10cm2/2 wks, respectively, with different management histories producing significant variation within a region.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations56
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Plant NutritionSame topicClay minerals and soil interactionsFrench-language works237,207