MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2785321773 · doi:10.5539/jas.v10n3p135

Human Urine and Treated Domestic Effluent for Ornamental Sunflower Cultivation

2018· article· en· W2785321773 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Karoline Santos Gonçalves, Samir de Sousa Bandeira, Gustavo Araújo Bispo, Vital Pedro da Silva Paz, Hans Raj Gheyi, Carlos Alberto da Silva Lédo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWastewater Treatment and Reuse
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEffluentSerial dilutionSunflowerFertilizerIrrigationOrnamental plantUrineHuman fertilizationHorticultureGreenhouseAgronomyBiologyChemistryEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental engineeringMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aimed to evaluate growth and production of ornamental sunflower (Helianthuns annuus L.), cv. Anão de Jardim, irrigated with dilutions of human urine in treated domestic effluent. The experiment was carried out in completely randomized design with five treatments and four replicates, in a greenhouse. Treatments consisted of four dilutions of human urine (0, 2, 4 and 6%) in treated domestic effluent and fertilization with 50% of the recommendation of mineral fertilizer. Plants irrigated with human urine dilutions (2, 4 and 6%) in treated domestic effluent and fertilized with 50% of the recommendation of nitrogen (N) and potassium (K) showed reductions of growth and production, while those irrigated with 0% human urine dilution in treated domestic effluent and fertilized with 50% of N and K recommendation exhibited similar performance to those irrigated with public-supply water and fertilized with 100% of the recommendation of mineral fertilizer. The obtained results allow to infer on the viability of replacing public-supply water by treated domestic effluent for irrigation, with reduction of 50% in N and K fertilization, without prejudice to the growth and production of ornamental sunflower plants, cv. Anão de Jardim.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.864
Threshold uncertainty score0.282

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.241 · 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.

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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicWastewater Treatment and ReuseFrench-language works237,207