La valorisation énergétique des biomasses peut-elle changer l’équilibre des cycles biogéochimiques dans les sols cultivés ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The uses of organic resources (plant biomasses, organic wastes) for bioenergy in substitution for fossil carbon, impact biogeochemical cycles of agroecosystems in multiple ways: first through cultural practices implemented during the biomass production phase, but also linked to the pathway of biomass use. These effects are illustrated here through three examples: the impact of the choice of the plant species (annual, pluriannual, perennial) on water use and soil carbon balance; (2) the effects of harvest date scenario of miscanthus crop, an herbaceous perennial species, on the recycling of nitrogen and carbon in the plant, and the fertilizer needs; these two examples are taken from field trials of the INRA S. Recous et al. 42 Innovations Agronomiques 54 (2016), 41-58 “biomass and environment” experimental platform of Estrées-Mons (northern France); (3) the introduction of anaerobic digestion at the farm level and the subsequent impacts on the carbon balance and biogeochemical nitrogen cycle in soils. These examples show the difficulty to know and master all the practices and factors involved in the production or processing of organic resources to minimize environmental impacts, due to the multiplicity of effects, often antagonistic, on biogeochemical processes and fluxes. The study of these impacts on a time scale larger than that of a growing season (scale of the rotation, and long-term), and with a territorial dimension (location of the organic resource, soil types), is essential.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".