MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2575758441

Root Growth of Apache Plume and Serviceberry on Molybdenum Mine Overburden in Northern New Mexico 1

2004· article· en· W2575758441 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mary I. Williams, Mohammed Tahboub, John T. Harrington, David R. Dreesen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSeedling growth and survival studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSowingHuman fertilizationBiologyHorticultureShootFertilizerBotanyAgronomyRoot system
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study evaluated root growth of Apache plume (Fallugia paradoxa) and Saskatoon serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia) on overburden at the Molycorp, Inc. Mine near Questa, NM. Container grown, 1-year-old seedlings were transplanted, and either fertilized or not fertilized at the time of planting in August 1995. Survival and shoot growth were monitored in 1996 and 2000. Root density was determined at three distances (planes) from the base of the plant at six depths in 2000. Fertilization effects on serviceberry root densities were depth dependent. Total root density of unfertilized plants was greater than fertilized plants. Serviceberry total root density differed among planes (distances from base of plant) between fertilization treatments. Fertilized plants had fewer roots in the 10-cm plane relative to the 20- and 30-cm planes. Fertilized plants of Apache plume had higher total root densities at depths >20 cm within the 20-cm plane than plants not fertilized at time of planting. Although overall performance in terms of shoot growth was positive for both species, survival was generally low and root density varied when fertilized at time of planting. Factors including fertilizer characteristics, planting date, and site conditions may have influenced species performance.

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 score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.103

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.204
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 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

Citations2
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSeedling growth and survival studiesFrench-language works237,207