A Road Map to Finding Microbiomes that Most Contribute to Plant and Soil Health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The interaction between plants and their associated microbes varies from being beneficial to neutral to deleterious.The development of ecological agriculture, where greatly less extraneous inputs will be used, requires us to identify and deploy microorganism that form beneficial relationships with crops and act to enhance their health and yields.Robust and inexpensive molecular techniques have allowed for rapid identification of key players and their interactions with plants but there is still a need to discover what factors regulate these interactions and to develop methods for delivering microbial products to the environments where they are needed.There is ample evidence that examining agroecosystems where production methods have resulted in exemplary high productivity of plants are the ideal conditions from which to isolate, identify and examine the factors that allow microorganisms to optimally exert their influences on host plants.With the introduction of aerial monitoring of crops, we could identify site specific locations within fields there were significant differences in the microbial interactions and that allowed us to examine factors associated with the variable productivity of plants within a field.Although we are still at the early stages of such studies there is a high probability that an agroecological approach will allow for the identification of the chemical, physical, environmental and microbiological factors that regulates plant-microbial interactions and to assess how such factors impact crop yields.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.004 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".