Nutrient Balance of Citrus Across the Mandarin Belts of India
Bibliographic record
Abstract
India is a major producer of mandarin oranges. However, the average fruit yield remains below potential due in part to multiple nutrient deficiencies. Our objective was to elaborate compositional nutrient diagnosis (CND) log-ratio standards accounting for nutrient interactions and the dilution the leaf tissue. We hypothesized that equally or unequally weighted dual nutrient log ratios integrated into centered log ratios (clr) or weighted log ratios (wlr) influence the accuracy of the CND diagnosis. The database comprised 494 observations on ‘Nagpur’, ‘Khasi’, and ‘Kinnow’ cultivars surveyed in contrasting agroecosystems of India. Weights were provided by gain ratios that indicated the importance of the dual log ratio on crop performance. The cutoff yield was set at the upper high-yield quarter for each variety. Centered log ratios (clrs) and weighted log ratios (wlrs) returned accuracies of 0.7–0.8 depending on the machine learning classification model. The gain ratios were not contrasted enough to make a difference between clr and wlr. We derived clr and wlr nutrient standards following the Gradient Boosting model. In a case study, the clr and wlr returned similar diagnoses. The capacity of clr and wlr to generalize to unseen cases and correct nutrient imbalance should be further verified in fertilizer trials. The diagnosis could also be conducted at a local scale, thanks to the Euclidian geometry and additivity of clr and wlr variables.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".