MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2996398371 · doi:10.1139/cjss-2019-0087

Fertilisation azotée, phosphatée et potassique dans la production du bleuet nain sauvage

2019· article· fr· W2996398371 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Jean Lafond

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Soil Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Physiology and Cultivation Studies
Canadian institutionsInstitut de Recherche et de Développement en AgroenvironnementNational Association of Friendship Centres
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForestryChemistryGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Plusieurs études ont démontré l’importance de la fertilisation en azote (N) dans l’accroissement de la productivité du bleuet. Peu d’information est toutefois disponible sur le phosphore (P) et le potassium (K). Les objectifs de cette étude étaient de déterminer les impacts de la fertilisation NPK sur les propriétés chimiques du sol et les paramètres agronomiques. Les traitements ont consisté en quatre doses de N (0 à 90 kg N ha−1), deux doses de P (0 et 20 kg P2O5 ha−1) et quatre doses de K (0 à 90 kg K2O ha−1). Le dispositif expérimental, établi sur six sites au Saguenay-Lac-St-Jean, était un factoriel en blocs complets aléatoires. Le pH du sol a diminué suivant les applications de N, de 0,1 unité dans la couche de surface et de 0,2 unité dans la couche 5–30 cm. Des accumulations de P et de K ont été mesurées en surface. Les rendements en fruits ont augmenté de 43 % à la suite des applications de N. Une application de 20 kg P2O5 ha−1 a semblé nécessaire pour maximiser les rendements lorsque les apports en N dépassaient 50 kg ha−1. Une dose ≥ 30 kg K2O ha−1 a diminué les rendements en fruits jusqu’à 24 % lorsque combinée avec une dose > 60 kg N ha−1.

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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Citations7
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Soil ScienceSame topicPlant Physiology and Cultivation StudiesFrench-language works237,207