MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4231536343 · doi:10.1139/x00-009

Effects of liming on the nutrition, vigor, and growth of sugar maple at the Lake Clair Watershed, Québec, Canada

2000· article· en· W4231536343 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Jean‐David Moore, Claude Camiré, Rock Ouimet

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBanana Cultivation and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMapleLimeSugarAceraceaeWatershedHorticultureBotanyAgronomyChemistryEnvironmental scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the 1980s, sugar maple (Acer saccharum Marsh.) dieback was observed across its range in Quebec. In spite of the recovery of the majority of stands during recent years, some have continued to show signs of dieback progression. At the Lake Clair Watershed experimental station, a study was undertaken to evaluate the effect of liming on the nutrition, vigor, and growth of sugar maple in an acid soil, poor in available Ca and Mg. A completely randomized experiment was established and selected sugar maples were treated in 1994 with dolomitic lime in amounts of 0, 0.5, 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, or 50 t·ha-1. Four years after the lime application, improvements in foliar concentrations of N, P, Ca, and Mg were noted. Liming increased the radial growth of sugar maple by 45% for rates from 1 to 10 t·ha-1and by 90% for rates of 20 t·ha-1, compared with the control trees. The beneficial effects of lime on dieback appeared only very slightly at the third and fourth years after treatment. The negative impact of liming on sugar maple K nutrition could be mitigated by application of potassium sulphate.

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 score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score0.168

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations60
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicBanana Cultivation and ResearchFrench-language works237,207