MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406020784 · doi:10.1007/s42773-024-00397-0

Advancing modified biochar for sustainable agriculture: a comprehensive review on characterization, analysis, and soil performance

2025· review· en· W4406020784 on OpenAlexafffund
Ali Fakhar, Snowie Jane C. Galgo, Ronley C. Canatoy, Mazhar Rafique, Rubab Sarfraz, Aitazaz A. Farooque, Muhammad Israr Khan

Bibliographic record

VenueBiochar · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward Island
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiocharCharacterization (materials science)Sustainable agricultureAgricultureAgroforestryEnvironmental scienceAgricultural economicsNatural resource economicsBusinessAgricultural engineeringEnvironmental planningEconomicsGeographyEngineeringWaste managementMaterials scienceNanotechnologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Biochar is a carbon-rich material produced through the pyrolysis of various feedstocks. It can be further modified to enhance its properties and is referred to as modified biochar (MB). The research interest in MB application in soil has been on the surge over the past decade. However, the potential benefits of MB are considerable, and its efficiency can be subject to various influencing factors. For instance, unknown physicochemical characteristics, outdated analytical techniques, and a limited understanding of soil factors that could impact its effectiveness after application. This paper reviewed the recent literature pertaining to MB and its evolved physicochemical characteristics to provide a comprehensive understanding beyond synthesis techniques. These include surface area, porosity, alkalinity, pH, elemental composition, and functional groups. Furthermore, it explored innovative analytical methods for characterizing these properties and evaluating their effectiveness in soil applications. In addition to exploring the potential benefits and limitations of utilizing MB as a soil amendment, this article delved into the soil factors that influence its efficacy, along with the latest research findings and advancements in MB technology. Overall, this study will facilitate the synthesis of current knowledge and the identification of gaps in our understanding of MB.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations60
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiocharSame topicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsFrench-language works237,207