MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7018694493

Effects of sugar-amendment on bacterial & fungal abundance in native vs. nonnative-dominated soils of a Puget lowland prairie

2012· article· en· W7018694493 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueSound Ideas (University of Puget Sound) · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPolar Research and Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbundance (ecology)Soil waterNative plantBroomPlant communityEcosystemRelative species abundanceIntroduced species
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Scotch broom is a nonnative plant that has invaded the plant communities of the Pacific Northwest in the United States. It associates with bacteria in the soil to fix nitrogen from the atmosphere, thereby elevating soil nitrogen levels and encouraging the invasion of the community by other nonnative plants like itself. Researchers have used sugar-amendment to decrease soil nitrogen and restore native plant growth. Our study took place in Glacial Heritage Preserve, a Puget lowland prairie that has been invaded by broom in several areas. We aimed to investigate whether sugar-amendment increased or decreased bacterial and fungal abundance in native versus broom-dominated soils of the prairie. We plan on using quantitative PCR (qPCR) to measure abundance and have currently optimized fungal primers for this purpose. During this study, we also collected data on soil nitrate to later compare with abundance data. Optimization of bacterial primers and further abundance data collection is forthcoming. Through this work, we hope to elucidate more about plant-microbial interactions and understand the effectiveness of sugar-amendment as a means of native plant restoration.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.225 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSound Ideas (University of Puget Sound)Same topicPolar Research and EcologyFrench-language works237,207