MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6950218957 · doi:10.5683/sp3/ywi2lt

Impact of land-use change to biomass crops and biofertilizer application on biomass productivity, soil organic carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus and soil health

2024· dataset· en· W6950218957 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueBorealis · 2024
Typedataset
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiomass (ecology)Soil carbonSoil healthBiofertilizerPhosphorusSoil organic matterGreenhouse gasSoil quality

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This dataset is compiled to investigate the effects of land-use change on biomass crops and the application of biofertilizers, focusing on biomass productivity, soil organic carbon (SOC), nitrogen, phosphorus, and overall soil health. The data in this collection aims to quantify SOC sequestration rates using 2016 baseline data, assess soil total nitrogen and phosphorus in different land-use systems, measure SOC and nitrogen in various soil aggregate-size fractions, evaluate greenhouse gas emissions influenced by applied fertilizer treatments, determine carbon dioxide (CO2) released from different fractions through incubation studies, and analyze SOC stability and sustainability across three land-use systems. Additionally, the dataset aims to quantitatively assess biomass yields influenced by different biofertilizers provided by industry partners, ranking them based on their yield response and cost-effectiveness. The dataset also contributes to the development of soil health indicators for biomass crops by quantitatively assessing fungal communities (micro-faunal), earthworm densities (macro-faunal), SOC, Haney soil health, and Solvita test.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.131

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.014

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBorealis→French-language works237,207→