Mathematical and computational modeling for organic and insect frass fertilizer production: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Organic fertilizers have been identified as a sustainable agricultural practice that can enhance productivity and reduce environmental impact. Recently, the European Union defined and accepted insect frass as an innovative and emerging organic fertilizer. In the wider domain of organic fertilizers, mathematical and computational models have been developed to optimize their production and application conditions. However, with the advancement in policies and regulations, modelling has shifted towards efficiencies in the deployment of these technologies. Therefore, this paper reviews and critically analyzes the recent developments in the mathematical and computation modeling that have promoted various organic fertilizer products including insect frass. We reviewed a total of 35 studies and discussed the methodologies, benefits, and challenges associated with the use of these models. The results show that mathematical and computational modeling can improve the efficiency and effectiveness of organic fertilizer production, leading to improved agricultural productivity and reduced environmental impact. Mathematical models such as simulation, regression, dynamics, and kinetics have been applied while computational data driven machine learning models such as random forest, support vector machines, gradient boosting, and artificial neural networks have also been applied as well. These models have been used in quantifying nutrients concentration/release, effects of nutrients in agro-production, and fertilizer treatment. This paper also discusses prospects for the use of these models, including the development of more comprehensive and accurate models and integration with emerging technologies such as Internet of Things.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".