MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1657963302 · doi:10.4141/cjss2013-008

Alternative transformations of nitrous oxide soil flux data to normal distributions

2013· article· en· W1657963302 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Alan P. Moulin, Aaron J. Glenn, Mario Tenuta, David A. Lobb, Adedeji Dunmola, P.I. Yapa

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Soil Science · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil Geostatistics and Mapping
Canadian institutionsShell (Canada)University of ManitobaAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLog-normal distributionNormal distributionNitrous oxideNormalityMathematicsStatisticsTransformation (genetics)QuantileFlux (metallurgy)Variance (accounting)Distribution (mathematics)Soil scienceEnvironmental scienceChemistryMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Moulin, A. P., Glenn, A., Tenuta, M., Lobb, D. A., Dunmola, A. S. and Yapa, P. 2014. Alternative transformations of nitrous oxide soil flux data to normal distributions. Can. J. Soil Sci. 94: 105–108. Non-normal distributions of soil N2O fluxes are commonly log transformed prior to statistical analysis. These data are transformed to ensure that analysis of variance and regression based on least squares, meet the assumptions of normality for the distribution of data and equality of variances. Analysis of micrometeorological and static chamber-based fluxes of N2O in Manitoba show that continuous functions such as the Johnson Su and Sl, Generalized Log or normal quantile may be useful as alternatives to the lognormal, which was relatively less effective in transforming data, though each transformation should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations17
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Soil ScienceSame topicSoil Geostatistics and MappingFrench-language works237,207