MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2618302326 · doi:10.1139/er-2017-0011

Long-term application of organic matter based fertilisers: Advantages or risks for soil biota? A review

2017· review· en· W2618302326 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jakub Hlava, Jiřina Száková, Jaroslav Vadlejch, Zuzana Čadková, J. Balík, Pavel Tlustoš

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Reviews · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicNematode management and characterization studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceSoil biologySoil organic matterSoil biodiversitySoil functionsSoil fertilityEcosystemOrganic matterSoil waterSoil qualityBiotaEcosystem servicesSoil healthEcologySoil scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The addition of organic matter rich materials to agricultural soil is currently a common practice to improve its quality and fertility. However, the input of organic matter rich waste materials into soils significantly impacts ecosystem functions. The potential contamination of soil by various chemical compounds is one of the many risks that should be taken into account. Recent environmental studies have assessed the introduction of potentially hazardous compounds from pharmaceutical and personal care products, heavy metals, and other sources. This review summarizes knowledge concerning the influence of long-term soil fertilisation on soil biota, with special attention to soil nematodes. The interaction between fertilisers and soil organisms is highly complex. Nematode communities can be used as an ecosystem assessment tool to provide a holistic measure of the biotic and functional status of soils. However, extensive investigation of nematode interaction with the affected soil, and the physicochemical characteristics of the soil, should elucidate their role as one of the components in the feedback cycle controlling ecosystem processes.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.146
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations9
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental ReviewsSame topicNematode management and characterization studiesFrench-language works237,207