MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1977230097 · doi:10.1029/2005gl023922

Assessing the impact of changes in climate and CO<sub>2</sub> on potential carbon sequestration in agricultural soils

2005· article· en· W1977230097 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Atul K. Jain, Tristram O. West, Xiaojuan Yang, W. M. Post

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBiological and Environmental ResearchOffice of Science
KeywordsCarbon sequestrationEnvironmental scienceSoil carbonSoil waterTillageCarbon cycleCarbon fibersClimate changeAtmospheric carbon cycleGreenhouse gasSoil scienceAtmospheric sciencesCarbon dioxideEnvironmental chemistryAgronomyChemistryGeologyEcologyEcosystemOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Changes in soil management can potentially increase the accumulation of soil organic carbon (SOC), thereby sequestering CO2 from the atmosphere. However, the amount of carbon sequestered in soils can be augmented or lessened due to changes in climate and atmospheric CO2 concentration. The purpose of this paper is to study the influence of climate and CO2 feedbacks on soil carbon sequestration using a terrestrial carbon cycle model. Model simulations consist of observed adoption rates of no‐tillage practices on croplands in the U.S. and Canada between 1981–2000. Model results indicate potential sequestration rates between 0.4–0.6 MgC/ha/yr in the Midwestern U.S. with decreasing rates towards the western, dryer regions of the U.S. It is estimated here that changes in climate and CO2 between 1981–2000 could be responsible for an additional soil carbon sequestration of 42 Tg. This is 5% of the soil carbon estimated to be potentially sequestered as the result of conversion to no‐tillage in the U.S. and Canada.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.126
Threshold uncertainty score0.250

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations15
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research Letters→Same topicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics→French-language works237,207→