MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405859864 · doi:10.5376/msb.2024.15.0013

Pesticide Usage in Rice Cultivation: Consequences for Soil and Water Health

2024· article· en· W4405859864 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Soil Biology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPesticide and Herbicide Environmental Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPesticideEnvironmental scienceRice waterAgronomyAgricultural engineeringWater resource managementAgroforestryBiologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As global food demand continues to grow, the use of pesticides in rice cultivation has become a common practice to ensure high yields. However, the widespread application of these chemicals has significantly impacted soil and water health. This study provides an overview of the history and evolution of pesticide use in rice cultivation, explores the functions and application patterns of different types of pesticides, and further analyzes their effects on soil health. Through case studies, the study highlights the long-term impacts of pesticide use on soil in certain rice-producing regions. Pesticides entering water bodies through runoff and leaching can have significant negative effects on water quality. These chemicals, once in rivers, lakes, and groundwater, can lead to water pollution, degrade water quality, and consequently threaten the health of aquatic ecosystems. This study aims to systematically assess the environmental consequences of pesticide use in rice cultivation, particularly its impact on soil and water health, to fill the existing knowledge gaps and provide scientific evidence for the development of more sustainable agricultural practices.

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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.270
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular Soil BiologySame topicPesticide and Herbicide Environmental StudiesFrench-language works237,207