MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2182344914

Plant Root Simulator™-probes: an effective alternative for routine soil testing

2002· article· en· W2182344914 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
R.D. Hangs, K.J. Greer, C.A. Sulewski, Dylan Hicks

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuality assuranceCropService (business)Agricultural engineeringEnvironmental scienceNutrientComputer scienceEngineeringBusinessAgronomyEcologyMarketingBiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the current uncertainty facing the agronomic community, it is imperative for producers to have all of the necessary tools available for making informed decisions regarding crop nutrition planning. Considering that there are many indeterminate factors affecting the bottom line at the end of the growing season, it is prudent to manage the risk involved whenever possible. Utilizing a network of over 20 Field Service Representatives throughout Western Canada, Western Ag Labs provides an extensive one-on-one crop nutrition planning service to producers encompassing over 600,000 acres. Preceding any crop nutrition consultation, however, is the soil nutrient supply rate analysis carried out in the lab using Plant Root Simulator (PRS)™-probes. The purpose of this paper is to briefly describe the protocols employed by Western Ag Labs during routine soil analysis, including: soil sample handling and preparation; PRS™-probe \nanalysis; and, the quality assurance QA program. Historical ranges of selected nutrient supply rate data measured in the lab using the PRS™-probes also are presented.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.012

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.236
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 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

Citations14
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics→French-language works237,207→