Site-Specific Nutrient Diagnosis of Orange Groves
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nutrient diagnosis of orange (Citrus sinensis) groves in Brazil relies on regional information from a limited number of studies transferred to other environments under the ceteris paribus assumption. Interpretation methods are based on crude nutrient compositions that are intrinsically biased by genetics X environment interactions. Our objective was to develop accurate and unbiased nutrient diagnosis of orange groves combining machine learning (ML) and compositional methods. Fruit yield and foliar nutrients were quantified in 551 rainfed 7–15-year-old orange groves of ‘Hamlin’, ‘Valência’, and ‘Pêra’ in the state of São Paulo, Brazil. The data set was further documented using soil classification, soil tests, and meteorological indices. Tissue compositions were log-ratio transformed to account for nutrient interactions. Ionomes differed among scions. Regression ML models showed evidence of overfitting. Binary ML classification models showed acceptable values of areas under the curve (>0.7). Regional standards delineating the multivariate elliptical hyperspace depended on the yield cutoff. A shapeless blob hyperspace was delineated using the k-nearest successful neighbors that showed comparable features and reported realistic yield goals. Regionally derived and site-specific reference compositions may lead to differential interpretation. Large-size and diversified data sets must be collected to inform ML models along the learning curve, tackle model overfitting, and evaluate the merit of blob-scale diagnosis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".