MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3102621430 · doi:10.1111/gcbb.12779

Fertility management for industrial hemp production: Current knowledge and future research needs

2020· article· en· W3102621430 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sarah E. Wylie, Andrew G. Ristvey, Nicole M. Fiorellino

Bibliographic record

VenueGCB Bioenergy · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgronomic Practices and Intercropping Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFertilitySoil fertilityCannabis sativaBusinessProduction (economics)AgroforestryBiotechnologyBiomass (ecology)Environmental scienceAgronomyBiologyEnvironmental healthPopulationMedicineEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Until recently, commercial cultivation of industrial hemp ( Cannabis sativa L.) was illegal in the United States. Industrial hemp is cultivated for multiple purposes including fiber, seed, and biomass production; each requiring a different agronomic system which may require different nutrient and fertility recommendations. However, there is limited peer‐reviewed research available on hemp plant fertility requirements and soil‐nutrient removal. This essentially multiplies the research effort needed to generate scientifically sound fertigation recommendations. Some fertility research has been published from European and Canadian studies, but as cultivation of hemp increases in the U.S. researchers and extension personnel will be asked to generate recommendations for profitable hemp cultivation. This creates a need for new, updated, and relevant fertility research to form the basis of peer‐reviewed recommendations. This article reviews and summarizes the current state of peer‐reviewed industrial hemp fertility research and we pose ideas for future fertility studies necessary for the development of industrial hemp fertilizer recommendations.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.196
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.137 · 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

Citations44
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGCB BioenergySame topicAgronomic Practices and Intercropping SystemsFrench-language works237,207