MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2942927193 · doi:10.5539/jas.v11n7p1

Characteristics of Entisol Treated With Pulp Residue and Fertilizer in Eucalyptus Plantation

2019· article· en· W2942927193 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Elizeu de Souza Lima, Zigomar Menezes de Souza, Rafael Montanari, Alan Rodrigo Panosso, Ingrid Nehmi de Oliveira, Lenon Henrique Lovera, Diego Alexander Aguilera Esteban, Christtiane Fernandes Oliveira

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Management and Crop Yield
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLimeEucalyptusFertilizerMoistureOrganic matterResidue (chemistry)Environmental scienceLigninPhosphorusPulp and paper industryChemistryMineralogyAgronomyBotanyMetallurgyMaterials scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to identify, through multivariate analyzes, the physical and chemical characteristics of the soil that best explain the initial development of eucalyptus treated with limestone and lime sludge. This study was conducted in 2014 in the municipality of Três Lagoas (MS). Three treatments were experimented corresponding to the applications of (i) limestone, (ii) lime sludge, and (iii) control or application of neither limestone nor lime sludge. The principal components analysis identified that Group 1 assembling gravimetric moisture, hydrogen potential, calcium and aluminum and, Group 2 composed of contents of sand, clay, phosphorus and organic matter explained 54.96% of the total variability that showed higher discriminatory power of eucalyptus height and diameter variation at breast height. The treatment with limestone showed a contrast between high pH and high Ca content, but low levels of aluminum.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.187 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicSoil Management and Crop YieldFrench-language works237,207