MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2202576697

토양의 유효태 인산과 치환성 양이온의 다성분동시추출 분석방법 비교

2009· article· ko· W2202576697 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
김명숙, 양재의, 김유학, 윤정희, 장용선, 곽한강, 하상건, 현병근

Bibliographic record

Venue한국토양비료학회지 · 2009
Typearticle
Languageko
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture, Soil, Plant Science
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhosphateChemistryExtraction (chemistry)Soil testSoil waterAnalytical Chemistry (journal)ChromatographySoil scienceEnvironmental science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Soil testing is one of the best management practices for sustainable agriculture. Recently, as increasing soil testing needs, simplification of soil analytical procedure has been required. To determine recommendable multi-element extractant, the soil testing results of available phosphate and exchangeable cations between the conventional method(Lancasterand1MNH 4 OA c ) and multi-element extraction methods such as Mehlich Ⅲ, Modified Morgan and Kelowna methods were compared. There were highly significant correlation between the conventional methods and multi-element extraction methods (Mehlich Ⅲ, Modified Morgan and Kelowna) for available phosphate and exchangeable K, Ca, Mg and Na. The coefficients of determination (R 2 ) between available phosphate extracted by Lancaster method and multielement extraction methods were in the order of MehlichⅢ (0.979 *** ) > Kelowna (0.977 *** ) > Modified(Mod.). Morgan (0.553 *** ). For exchangeable cations, there were highly significant correlations between 1M NH4OAc method and Mehlich Ⅲ, Mod. Morgan and Kelowna. However, exchangeable K, Ca and Mg by Mehlich III method were more highly correlated with conventional method than other methods. Therefore, Mehlich III extraction method could be recommended as a single extractant for simultaneous measurement using ICP in the analysis of avaliable phosphate and exchangeable cations.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.004

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue한국토양비료학회지Same topicAgriculture, Soil, Plant ScienceFrench-language works237,207