Application of bioenergy ash as a fertilizer for conifer seedlings in a sub-borial reforestation site in the central interior, British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the Central Interior, British Columbia, two trials (in pots and in the field) examined conifer seedlings (lodgepole pine and hybrid spruce) subjected to treatments composed of two ash types (gasifier vs boiler), combined with nitrogen or alone. Two methods of placement, either broadcast spread or burying an ash-filled teabag, and two rates of application (2 tonnes ha-1 and 4 tonnes ha1) were other factors tested. Findings suggested ash fertilization success depended largely on tree species. The gasifier ash, high in mineral content compared to the charcoal-filled boiler ash, prompted the most growth, with and without nitrogen added, and also the highest soil pH increase. The low dose of ash was preferred by both species. Ash placement impacted belowground variables in the seedling pots and, in the field trial, positively influenced spruce growth. Broadcast ash induced the greatest soil pH change, compared to the teabag method.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".