MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406253602 · doi:10.5376/msb.2024.15.0022

Root-Soil Interactions Affecting Maize Growth

2025· article· en· W4406253602 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Soil Biology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoybean genetics and cultivation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman fertilizationYield (engineering)IrrigationAgronomyEnvironmental scienceBiologyMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The relationship between the roots of corn and the soil is of great significance to the growth, nutrient absorption and stress resistance of the crop. Many studies have shown that the morphology of roots, their secretions, and their interactions with the soil environment and microorganisms can affect corn's utilization efficiency of key resources such as water, nitrogen, and phosphorus, as well as its yield. Root secretions not only improve the environment around the roots but also attract beneficial microorganisms, assist in nutrient cycling, and make the soil healthier. Some agricultural practices, such as precise fertilization, adding soil conditioners, and cultivating varieties with better root systems, can also enhance the "root-soil interaction" effect, thereby improving the stress resistance and resource utilization rate of corn. In the future, if high-throughput phenotypic technology of root systems, soil science, microbiomics and agronomy are combined, it will be able to provide more assistance in cultivating high-yield, stress-resistant and sustainable corn varieties and planting methods. A thorough understanding and application of root-soil interaction are of vital importance for food security and sustainable agricultural development. The purpose of this study is to summarize and analyze these aspects to provide references for subsequent corn improvement and agricultural management.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.349
Threshold uncertainty score0.180

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular Soil BiologySame topicSoybean genetics and cultivationFrench-language works237,207