MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2243418746

Nutrient content of barley and red clover as influenced by application of compost.

2000· article· en· W2243418746 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
John Macleod, J. B. Sanderson, B. Douglas

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgronomic Practices and Intercropping Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompostHordeum vulgareNutrientLoamAgronomyRed CloverSowingEnvironmental sciencePoaceaeBiologySoil water
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Compost was made from source-separated municipal waste with or without disposable diapers included in the compostable waste stream. The composts were applied prior to planting of barley in a barley - red clover - potato rotation on a Charlottetown fine sandy loam soil. A control which did not receive compost was included in the randomized complete block experiments with four replications at each of the seven locations. Nutrient levels in the compost were determined by sampling compost material delivered to each location prior to, and during, the spreading operation. Nutrient levels in barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) and red clover (Trifolium pratense L.) tissue were determined. Some nutrients were found at slightly higher concentrations in the compost made from the waste stream containing disposable diapers than from the waste stream where disposable diapers were excluded. Nutrient levels in barley and red clover from compost-treated plots were generally higher than from the untreated plots. The two compost sources generally produced barley and clover with similar nutrient levels.

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)0.001
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations3
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunications in Soil Science and Plant AnalysisSame topicAgronomic Practices and Intercropping SystemsFrench-language works237,207