MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2885421734 · doi:10.4148/2378-5977.7608

Soybean Evaluation of Inoculation: A Three-Year Summary

2018· article· en· W2885421734 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mario A. Secchi, Tatiana Máximo Almeida Albuquerque, Osler Ortez, Gabriela Inveninato Carmona, Jennifer Kimball, Eric Adee, Ignacio A. Ciampitti

Bibliographic record

VenueKansas Agricultural Experiment Station Research Reports · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLegume Nitrogen Fixing Symbiosis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInoculationGrowing seasonHuman fertilizationYield (engineering)CropBiologyField experimentAgronomyHorticulture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The relationships between soybean (Glycine max) seed yield and response to nitrogen (N) fertilization have received considerable coverage in scientific literature. This project aims to quantify the response to inoculation for soybean in a field without previous history of this crop (20 years). To address this objective, field studies were conducted during the 2015, 2016, and 2017 growing seasons at the East Central Experiment Field, Ottawa, KS. The treatments consisted of five different N-management approaches: non-inoculated (NI), inoculation at the recommended commercial rate (I1), a double rate of inoculation (I2), a triple rate of inoculation (I3), and non-inoculated but fertilized with 300 lb of N/a (NF). In the 2015 growing season, yields did not statistically differ from one another. In the 2016 growing season, treatment differences were observed and seed yield ranged from 36 to 59 bu/a. In the 2017 growing season, treat­ments showed significant yield difference, with yields ranging from 23 to 52 bu/a, from the NI to the NF treatment, respectively. Further research should be carried out to understand the impact of the inoculation practice and better understand the best management for N in soybean in newly-planted areas.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKansas Agricultural Experiment Station Research ReportsSame topicLegume Nitrogen Fixing SymbiosisFrench-language works237,207