MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2758912042 · doi:10.1111/1365-2435.12976

Fungal inoculants in the field: Is the reward greater than the risk?

2017· article· en· W2758912042 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueFunctional Ecology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions
Canadian institutionsAlgoma UniversityOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMicrobial inoculantBiologyBiodiversityEcosystemBiofertilizerAgricultureUnintended consequencesEcosystem servicesBiotechnologyField (mathematics)Natural resource economicsAgroforestryEcologyAgronomyEconomicsBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Biofertilizers are a large part of the global agricultural economy. Recently, there has been an increase in the number of companies producing fungal inoculants. Whether these inoculants are useful is not clear; they are difficult to monitor in the field. The unintended consequences of inoculants in natural systems is not known, but if invasive, they may pose a threat to soil and plant biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. A plain language summary is available for this article.

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.

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 categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.210 · 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