MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2293035983

Nutritional status of Elm (Ulmus glabra Huds.) trees in National Botanical Garden of Iran

2009· article· en· W2293035983 on OpenAlexaff
Ahmad Rahmani, Yahya Dehghani Shoraki, Shahram Banedjschafie

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPlant Ecology and Soil Science
Canadian institutions123 Certification (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTraditional medicineUlmus pumilaBiologyBotanyHorticultureMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The National Botanical Garden of Iran (NBGI) with an area of 145 hectares contains various plants with different ecological requirements, including trees, shrubs, herbs and ornamentals. Weakness and decline of some tree species including Elm trees of botanical garden is one of the problems, which considered as the main priorities to be investigated by the garden authorities. Soil productivity and plant nutrient were concerned to be studied. For this reason, soil samples were taken from three layers of each profile (0-10, 10-30 and 30-100 cm) around Elm trees, after studying the soil profile morphology. Leaf sampling was made at appropriate time in order to test N, P, K at first year and N, P, K, Ca, Fe, Mn and Zn at second year. Results showed that the soil texture was sandy, organic mater was low and pH was alkaline. The mineral elements were lower than the optimum range in soil and tree leaves. It can be concluded that increasing soil organic matter, adding adequate amount of manure and chemical fertilizers to soil and applying appropriate irrigation regime might improve the plants health and growth and prevent their decline.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.167
GPT teacher head0.501
Teacher spread0.334 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicPlant Ecology and Soil ScienceFrench-language works237,207