MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2499499398

Residue studies of methabenzthiazuron in soil, lentils and hay

2002· article· en· W2499499398 on OpenAlexaff
K.I. Al-Maghrabi

Bibliographic record

VenueArab Gulf journal of scientific research · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect and Pesticide Research
Canadian institutionsGovernment of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHayResidue (chemistry)Soil testAgronomyReplicateSignificant differenceSoil waterAnimal scienceChemistryEnvironmental scienceBiologyMathematicsSoil science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over two years, replicate plots of lentils (Lens culinaris L.) were treated before seeding with methabenzthiazuron at a rate of 0.5 kg a.i. ha - 1 . In each year, representative soil, lentil and hay samples were randomly collected from plots of each treatment. Soil samples were tested for residues 24 hrs. after treatment and at harvest. Lentil and hay samples were tested at harvest. A cleanup step was conducted after extraction. Gas chromatograph equipped with a nitrogen/phosphorus detector was used to detect methabenzthiazuron. Overall average of residue levels in soil decreased significantly from 1.16 ′ 0.15 mg kg - 1 , 24 hrs. after treatment, to 0.12 ′ 0.01 mg kg - 1 at harvest. No significant difference in the maximum average residue was found in lentil and hay samples collected from various plots and tested at harvest (0.10 ′ 0.01 and 0.19 ′ 0.02 mg kg - 1 in lentils and hay, respectively). Recovery tests were conducted with each group of samples tested in order to determine the efficiency of the analytical procedure.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.286
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.112 · 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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArab Gulf journal of scientific researchSame topicInsect and Pesticide ResearchFrench-language works237,207