MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312232928 · doi:10.4236/gep.2022.1010005

Heavy Metals in Agricultural Soils of San Francisco de Macorís and La Vega, Dominican Republic

2022· article· en· W4312232928 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ramón Delanoy, Carime Matos Espinosa, Yamilesa Herrera

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geoscience and Environment Protection · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistrstvo za visoko šolstvo, znanost in tehnologijo
KeywordsSoil waterAgricultureEnvironmental scienceHeavy metalsForestryGeographyChemistryEnvironmental chemistryArchaeologySoil science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Dominican Republic exists cultive larges fields of various agricultural rubles. The largest extensions are rice, banana and cocoa; these are located in the Cibao Valley. In the eastern, southwestern, and a small area in the north of the country, sugar cane is cultivated. Heavy metals are found in many of these soils that could be affecting the quality of agricultural products or production. The levels of Cr, Ni, Zn, Cu, Cd, As, Hg and Pb, determined by X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy, in soils collected in two cultivation areas of Rice de La Vega and San Francisco de Macoris (SFM) have been compared with the NOAA-USEPA Canadian Agricultural Soil and Sediment Guide (CEQGs) (SQuiRTs Table). The levels of Cr and Ni in La Vega exceeded the threshold effects levels (TEL), and the probable effects levels (PEL). Pb levels in the La Vega area were higher than in SFM. In general, these metals are found in the La Vega area in higher concentrations than in SFM, exceeding PEL and TEL.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.555
Threshold uncertainty score0.895

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geoscience and Environment ProtectionSame topicGeochemistry and Geologic MappingFrench-language works237,207