Core aeration of sand-based putting greens in the Lower Fraser Valley of British Columbia
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Core aeration, a management practice originally developed for soil-based putting greens, is still commonly used on sand-based greens. The study objective was to determine the effects of core aeration on soil properties of sand-based putting greens in the Lower Fraser Valley of British Columbia. The experiment was laid out as a randomized complete block design with three replications. The study treatments were regular management practices, including core aeration (CA) carried out in spring and late summer, and regular management practices, but no core aeration (NCA). Each core aeration event impacted 5% of the surface area. Treatments with and without core aeration had similar soil organic matter content, root weight density, and soil bulk density. The CA treatment was generally drier than NCA. Water infiltration was greater on CA than NCA, but only for 1 mo following core aeration. Core aeration generally reduced soil penetration resistance within the mat layer relative to treatment without this practice. On both treatments, soil penetration resistance consistently exceeded 4000 kPa below about 13 cm depth preventing deeper root growth. The limited benefits of the low-surface-area-impact core aeration on the maturing sand-based putting greens in a humid maritime climate suggest that this practice might not be worth doing (at a low surface area impact); however, additional, more detailed studies are needed to confirm this. Key words: Turf management, golf course management, soil penetration resistance, water infiltration
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it