MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2471880432 · doi:10.1139/er-2016-0008

Biochar influences on agricultural soils, crop production, and the environment: A review

2016· review· en· W2471880432 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Ahmed Ahmed, Jiby Kurian, Vijaya Raghavan

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Reviews · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiocharEnvironmental scienceSlash-and-charSoil waterAmendmentSoil qualityAgricultureContext (archaeology)Soil retrogression and degradationAgricultural productivityCarbon sequestrationAgronomySoil fertilitySoil scienceChemistryEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Given its high pore volume and adsorption capacity, and when applied as an agricultural soil amendment, its ability to enhance the soil’s nutrient- and water- holding capacities, biochar has become a focus of research interest. In most applications, crop productivity is significantly increased after agricultural soils are amended with biochar. In addition to increasing soil quality, the biochar amendments sequester carbon within the soil. However, the long-term effects of amending agricultural soils with biochar are difficult to predict, because the mechanisms behind the increase in productivity of biochar amended soils are not yet fully understood. Long-term detrimental effects on soil and the environment can occur if biochar is applied haphazardly. Current knowledge and the additional experimental work required to thoroughly understand the influence of biochar amendment on the behavior of agricultural soils processes are reviewed. Further, studies on the post production processing of biochar are discussed in the context of the possible engineering of biochar for particular states of soil degradation.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.002

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations89
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental ReviewsSame topicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsFrench-language works237,207