The Emergence and Survival of Certain Forage Plants when Seeded in a Saline Soil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Salty soils are recognized as an ever increasing problem connected with irrigation agriculture. Millions have been spent by state, federal and private agencies on technical research in an attempt to solve this problem. Other millions have been spent on drainage projects, land leveling, field explorations and soil amendments attempting to alleviate the situation in the field. Physical conditions such as lack of drainage outlets or the impermeable nature of soils may prevent reclamation. Some areas are physically capable of drainage but the cost would be excessive. This condition necessitates the production of salt tolerant and sometimes water tolerant crops if such lands are to give any returns. Other lands may produce such crops during the reclamation period. Plants are known to vary in their ability to grow under salty conditions; however, salt tolerance does not insure profitable production. Some highly tolerant plants have little economic value and/or their production on salty soil may be very low. Some plants are known to be salt tolerant in the mature stage but sensitive in the seedling stage. This study concerns the emergence and survival of certain forage plants when seeded in a saline soil. The techniques used in approaching this problem have been modified since this study was conducted.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".