Classification and fertility status of organically managed fields across Saskatchewan, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Records from 60 organically managed fields across Saskatchewan were obtained from 39 farmers. The records contained details of 6 yr of management practices applied to each field and details about the general farm operation under which the individual fields were managed. In addition, soil samples were collected from each field and analysed for available N, P, K and S, pH, electrical conductivity (EC) and soil organic carbon. Soil nutrient availability is reported by soil zone. Using information from the management questionnaire, the 60 fields were classified into four distinct management systems, Perennial, Summerfallow, Cereal, and Diverse, and soil nutrient availability examined according to management system. Despite classification of four systems, only the Perennial and Diverse systems had a functionally (and statistically) significant effect on selected soil properties. Inclusion of alfalfa in rotation (Perennial system) acidified the soil and reduced availability of P and K relative to the Diverse system. According to soil test results, fields in all of the systems and across all soil zones were apparently deficient in available P, deficient to marginally deficient in available N and marginally deficient in available S. Available K levels were generally optimal. Information from this study provides a baseline for fertility of soils under organic production across Saskatchewan. The overall low levels of available P, N and S identified in this study raise questions about the long-term sustainability of these organic systems, as well as the suitability of traditional soil testing for accurately assessing the soil fertility potential of organic managed soils.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".