MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2765421785 · doi:10.26789/aeb.2017.01.007

Microbial biomass C and N dynamics, and 15N incorporation into microbial biomass under faba bean, canola, barley, and summer fal- low in a Gray Luvisol

2017· article· en· W2765421785 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ji‐Dong Gu, W. B. McGill

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Environmental Biotechnology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCanolaAgronomyBiomass (ecology)Soil waterHordeum vulgareNitrogenSummer fallowBiologyChemistryEnvironmental sciencePoaceaeEcologyCropping

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Microbial biomass C and N dynamics was studied of the soils cropped to faba bean, canola, barley and summer fallow in the Breton Plots in Canada. Stable isotope 15 N was used to trace the incorporation of 15 N into microbial biomass fraction. Flush N was calculated in three ways to compare discrepancies that may exist in results widely published. Crop and cropping had significant effects on microbial biomass C and respiration C of treated soils. Microbial biomass C estimated in faba bean plots was higher than that in canola, barley or summer fallow by 44, 39 and 167% on the average of four samplings. A peak was observed for canola, barley and summer fallow around July 24, but it was not evident for faba bean. Flush N was not significant upon treatments, and 15N incorporated into the flush N fraction and 15 N excess varied with treatments. Among three approaches of calculating flush N, we found that NH 4 + in fumigated less the nonfumigated soils yielded the best results, NH 4 + in fumigated without control resulting in deviation from considering a control by 1-2% in faba bean, 1-6% in barley and 1% in canola and summer fallow.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.158
Threshold uncertainty score0.313

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Environmental Biotechnology→Same topicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics→French-language works237,207→