MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2886852914 · doi:10.1111/1751-7915.13303

Rhizoremediation of petroleum hydrocarbons: a model system for plant microbiome manipulation

2018· review· en· W2886852914 on OpenAlexafffund
Sara Correa‐García, Pranav Mukund Pande, Armand Séguin, Marc St‐Arnaud, Étienne Yergeau

Bibliographic record

VenueMicrobial Biotechnology · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMicrobial bioremediation and biosurfactants
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalEspace pour la vieInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGovernment of Canada
KeywordsPhytoremediationEnvironmental remediationEnvironmental scienceBiochemical engineeringRhizosphereAbiotic componentEnvironmental chemistryContaminationBiologyChemistrySoil waterEcologySoil scienceEngineeringBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Phytoremediation is a green and sustainable alternative to physico‐chemical methods for contaminated soil remediation. One of the flavours of phytoremediation is rhizoremediation, where plant roots stimulate soil microbes to degrade organic contaminants. This approach is particularly interesting as it takes advantage of naturally evolved interaction mechanisms between plant and microorganisms and often results in a complete mineralization of the contaminants (i.e. transformation to water and CO 2 ). However, many biotic and abiotic factors influence the outcome of this interaction, resulting in variable efficiency of the remediation process. The difficulty to predict precisely the timeframe associated with rhizoremediation leads to low adoption rates of this green technology. Here, we review recent literature related to rhizoremediation, with a particular focus on soil organisms. We then expand on the potential of rhizoremediation to be a model plant‐microbe interaction system for microbiome manipulation studies.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations149
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMicrobial BiotechnologySame topicMicrobial bioremediation and biosurfactantsFrench-language works237,207