MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4212829201 · doi:10.1002/crso.20179

Evaluating Impacts of 4R Nutrient Stewardship

2022· article· en· W4212829201 on OpenAlexaff
Tom Bruulsema

Bibliographic record

VenueCrops & Soils · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil and Water Nutrient Dynamics
Canadian institutionsPlant Biotechnology Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStewardship (theology)LivelihoodAgricultureFood securityBusinessEnvironmental stewardshipLife-cycle assessmentCarbon footprintEnvironmental resource managementTipping point (physics)Nutrient managementQuality (philosophy)Environmental planningEnvironmental economicsAgricultural scienceAgricultural engineeringEnvironmental scienceGreenhouse gasProduction (economics)EngineeringGeographyEconomicsPolitical scienceEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nutrients are essential for plant and animal agriculture and comprise a large portion of its outputs. The starting point for assuring beneficial impacts is the adaptive management built into 4R Nutrient Stewardship. To manage adaptively means to evaluate impacts in your decision cycle. The metrics you evaluate need to reflect impacts important to your local farming system. Farther‐reaching impacts of crop nutrition include water quality, air quality, carbon footprint, biodiversity, food security, human nutrition, farm livelihoods, and circularity. By better documenting the decision cycle, our current and past practices, and their relation to impacts, the industry has the opportunity to build public trust. Earn 0.5 CEUs in Nutrient Management by reading this article and taking the quiz at https://bit.ly/3KYONvh . View all CEUs online at https://web.sciencesocieties.org/Learning‐Center/Courses .

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)0.035
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.087
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 score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.185

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0350.087
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.002

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCrops & SoilsSame topicSoil and Water Nutrient DynamicsFrench-language works237,207