MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386099661 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3243685/v1

A critical examination of crop-yield data on vegetables, maize (Zea mays L) and tea (Camellia sinensis) for Sri Lankan biofilm biofertilizers

2023· preprint· en· W4386099661 on OpenAlexaff
M. W. C. Dharma‐wardana, Parakrama Waidyanatha, K. A. Renuka, D. Sumith S. Abeysiriwardena, B. Marambe

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWastewater Treatment and Reuse
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiofertilizerAgricultureBiotechnologyFertilizerGreen RevolutionSri lankaCrop yieldAgroforestryAgronomyToxicologyBiologyEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental planningEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract With increasing global interest in microbial methods for agriculture, the commercialization of biofertilizers in Sri Lanka is of general interest. The use of a biofilm-biofertilizer (BFBF) commercialized in Sri Lanka is claimed to reduce chemical fertilizer (CF) usage by ~ 50% while boosting harvest by 20–30%. Many countries have explored the potential of biofilm biofertilizers, but have so far found mixed results. Here we review the BFBF commercialized in Sri Lanka and approved for national use. We show in detail that the improved yields claimed for this BFBF fall within the uncertainties (error bars) of the harvest. Theoretical models that produce a seemingly reduced CF scenario with an “increase” in harvests, although this is in fact not so, are presented. While BFBF usage seems to improve soil quality in some instances, the currently available BFBF promoted in Sri Lanka appears to have negligible impact on crop yields. We also briefly consider the potentially negative effects of large-scale adoption of microbial methods. The manner whereby a poorly-tested but product of biotechnology gained government and institutional acceptance is of global relevance in the rush to adopt new climate-mitigating technologies.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.435
Threshold uncertainty score0.916

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.186
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch SquareSame topicWastewater Treatment and ReuseFrench-language works237,207