D7.7. EIP Practice Abstracts (second version)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The FERTIMANURE project’s main objective is to develop, integrate, test, and validate innovative nutrient management strategies to efficiently recover mineral nutrients and other relevant products with the agronomic value from animal manure to obtain reliable and safe fertilisers that can compete in the European fertilisers market. The EIP practice abstracts aim to ensure uptake by farmers by outlining the benefits and practical recommendations for using the produced BBFs and TMFs. The resulting innovative knowledge and easily accessible end-user material from this project will feed into the EIP AGRI (The agricultural European Innovation Partnership) website for broad dissemination. The end-user material to be produced contains a substantial number of summaries for practitioners in the EIP common format ("practice abstracts"), including the characteristics of the project (e.g., contact details of partners, etc.). A full package of practice abstracts will be produced by FERTIMANURE, containing all the outcomes/recommendations ready for practice. A total target number of 12 practice abstracts is foreseen for the project, which is expected to be delivered in 3 different sets during M18, M36 and M48.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.073 | 0.004 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".