MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7097862776

Manitoba Livestock and Manure Management Initiative

2009· article· en· W7097862776 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil and Water Nutrient Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsManureSurface runoffLeaching (pedology)Manure managementSoil waterEutrophicationFertilizerLivestock
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Continuous application of manure P above crop removal results in a buildup of soil phosphorus (P), which increases the risk of P runoff loss from agricultural land, leading to environmental problems such as eutrophication of surface waters. There is little or no information about the forms of manure P that are correlated with risk of P loss after manure interacts with soil, especially for prairie soils. The objectives of this study were to quantify and compare P losses from liquid swine- and solid cattle- manure treated soils after incubating for 6 weeks, and to relate P losses to manure P forms and soil test P after incubation. Amount of P in different fractions of manure samples were quantified using the modified Hedley fractionation. Phosphorus runoff and leaching losses in ten fertility treatments (4 sources of solid cattle manure, 4 sources of liquid swine manure, monoammonium phosphate (MAP) and check) were compared in two soils (Lone Sand and Newdale Clay Loam) with two replicates for each fertility treatment by conducting a rainfall simulation runoff study and a column leaching study. Manure or fertilizer was applied to soil at the rate of 50 mg P kg-1 soil (≈100 kg of P ha-1), mixed, moistened to 90 % field capacity and

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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.666
Threshold uncertainty score0.664

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0970.011

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.185 · 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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoil and Water Nutrient Dynamics→French-language works237,207→