MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2613625729 · doi:10.1080/09064710.2017.1327082

Relationship of soil properties to pyroxasulfone bioactivity in a range of prairie soils

2017· article· en· W2613625729 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Anna M. Szmigielski, R.D. Hangs, J.J. Schoenau

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Agriculturae Scandinavica Section B - Soil & Plant Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPesticide and Herbicide Environmental Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersHealth CanadaMinistry of Agriculture - SaskatchewanUniversity of Saskatchewan
KeywordsSoil waterOrganic matterSoil organic matterAgronomySoil scienceBiologyEnvironmental scienceEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The relationship between pyroxasulfone bioactivity and soil properties has not been investigated in a wide range of soils typical of western Canada. In this study, 47 soils from Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta, with varying organic matter content (1.5%–22.1%), pH (5.0–7.9), and clay content (6.8%–59.4%) were used to evaluate the effect of soil properties on pyroxasulfone bioactivity and its relevance to field application rates. Bioactivity was assessed by measuring the reduction of sugar beet shoot length after 7 days in response to 0, 92, 184, and 368 µg ai kg−1 pyroxasulfone concentration in soil. Multiple regression analysis showed that pyroxasulfone bioactivity was related to soil organic matter content, pH and clay content. Grouping the soils according to these properties allowed for a summarization of pyroxasulfone field application rates required to achieve bioactivity based on the magnitude of sugar beet shoot length inhibition (%). The estimated field application rates ranged from less than 120–480 g ai ha−1.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.227
Threshold uncertainty score0.451

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa Agriculturae Scandinavica Section B - Soil & Plant ScienceSame topicPesticide and Herbicide Environmental StudiesFrench-language works237,207