MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7133017541

Growth and nutritional responses of Sesbania sesban (L.) Merr. to rock phosphate, biofertilizer and rhizobial applications

2006· dissertation· W7133017541 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Willis Atie

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2006
Typedissertation
Language
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLegume Nitrogen Fixing Symbiosis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInternational Atomic Energy AgencyUniversity of TorontoGovernment of the Republic of Kenya
KeywordsBiofertilizerSesbania sesbanPhosphoriteRhizobiaPhosphorusPhosphate solubilizing bacteriaFertilizerBiomass (ecology)Soil fertility
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Continuous crop cultivation without adequate fertilizer input has led to poor yields and soil degradation in the tropics. To restore soil fertility through agroforestry practices, N2-fixing tree fallows are planted to produce nutrient-rich biomass that is incorporated in soils. The quantity and quality of biomass produced can be improved by phosphorus fertilization, inoculation with rhizobia or use of biofertilizers. My study examined the effects of rhizobial inoculation, biofertilizer and rock phosphate applications and their interactions on growth and nutrition of S. sesban planted in potted acidic soils of western Kenya. Rhizobial inoculation improved nodulation only when rock phosphate was added. Although biofertilizer failed to stimulate root nodulation, it enhanced plant nutrient absorption. Fertilization with rock phosphate enhanced growth and nutrition of S. sesban most and is recommended for use in agroforestry. There was a small but significant beneficial interaction between rock phosphate and biofertilizer use on Sesbania growth and nutrition.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace→Same topicLegume Nitrogen Fixing Symbiosis→French-language works237,207→