MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403820776 · doi:10.18280/ijdne.190514

Assessment of the Agronomic Value of Organic Fertilizer Made of Composted Sludge

2024· article· en· W4403820776 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ainash Nauanova, Assiya Algozhina, Т. О. Хамитова, Aida Yesmurzayeva

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture and Biological Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistry of Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan
KeywordsFertilizerOrganic fertilizerEnvironmental scienceAgronomyWaste managementValue (mathematics)Agricultural engineeringEngineeringMathematicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study presents data on changes in the chemical composition of sludge in Astana (Republic of Kazakhstan) during composting with the addition of wheat straw and microbial biological preparations.The purpose of this study was to evaluate the agronomic value of sludge compost as a fertilizer.The specific hypotheses tested in this study were: (1) the addition of different biological preparations will improve the quality of the compost, enhancing its nutrient content (nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium), and (2) the incorporation of wheat straw will reduce nitrogen losses during composting by increasing the carbon-to-nitrogen ratio.Quantitative changes in the chemical components of compost from a mixture of sludge and wheat straw during composting were studied.The pH of the sludge increased during the first 10 days of composting and then decreased.In almost all samples, the amount of total phosphorus and potassium increased up to 2 times during composting.Losses reached up to 35% of the initial nitrogen, as a result of nitrogen volatilization.The addition of straw helped to reduce nitrogen losses during the active phase by increasing the carbon-to-nitrogen ratio in the initial mixtures.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.958
Threshold uncertainty score0.114

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.236 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Design & Nature and EcodynamicsSame topicAgriculture and Biological StudiesFrench-language works237,207