MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1560026785 · doi:10.2134/agronmonogr47.c12

Measurement of Soil Respiration in situ: Chamber Techniques

2005· book-chapter· en· W1560026785 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAgronomy monograph/Agronomy · 2005
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoil and Unsaturated Flow
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceSoil respirationSoil scienceFlux (metallurgy)Water contentIn situRespirationMoistureAtmospheric sciencesSoil waterMaterials scienceMeteorologyPhysicsGeologyGeotechnical engineeringBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Soil respiration is commonly estimated as the flux of CO2 emitted from the soil surface (Fc ). Chamber techniques have been used to estimate soil respiration for more than eight decades and remain the most commonly used approach. In this chapter, the authors describe the physical and biological factors affected by chamber deployment and discuss ways to minimize the impact of those changes on chamber determination of Fc . The principal factors influencing chamber performance include soil and air temperature, CO2 concentration gradients, pressure fluctuations, soil and air moisture, site disturbance, leakage, and air mixing regime. The authors also discuss the principles of operation of steady-state and non-steady-state chambers, as well as the methodology for spatial and temporal integration of chamber measurements. Several types of chambers are used for in situ measurement of Fc .

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.953
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.184 · 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