MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979956439 · doi:10.13031/2013.24840

Quantification of Dissolved Nitrous Oxide Loss as Influenced by Tillage

2008· article· en· W1979956439 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jennifer D. Roper, David L. Burton, Ali Madani, Glenn W. Stratton

Bibliographic record

Venue2008 Providence, Rhode Island, June 29 - July 2, 2008 · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceTillageTile drainageGreenhouse gasDrainageNitrous oxideCarbon dioxideWater qualitySoil waterAgronomyHydrology (agriculture)Soil scienceChemistryEcologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A movement towards more sustainable agriculture in Canada has resulted in the adoption of beneficial management practices, such as zero-tillage. The drive to implement zero- tillage is based on a desire to improve and protect soil and water quality, while contributing to the reduction of carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere. However, net greenhouse gas impacts of converting to zero-tillage in eastern Canada are unclear, as there is a potential for increased nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions offsetting possible soil carbon storage. Discussion on the fate of nitrogen in soil assumes that N2O is lost to the atmosphere from the soil surface as a gas. However, the degassing of N2O dissolved in soil solution from agricultural drainage water is believed to contribute to N2O accumulation in the atmosphere. Here we examine the impact of tillage practices on soil hydrology, and its influence on the dissolution and transport of N2O in tile drainage water. Through measurements of N2O in tile drainage water it has been revealed that tillage practice does not have a significant impact on the amount of dissolved N2O released through tile drainage water.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.432
Threshold uncertainty score0.878

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2008 Providence, Rhode Island, June 29 - July 2, 2008Same topicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsFrench-language works237,207