MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990391730 · doi:10.2136/sssaj2005.0260

SOIL EXTRACTION, ION EXCHANGE RESIN, AND ION EXCHANGE MEMBRANE MEASURES OF SOIL MINERAL NITROGEN DURING INCUBATION OF A TALLGRASS PRAIRIE SOIL

2005· article· en· W1990391730 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dale W. Johnson, Paul Verburg, John A. Arnone

Bibliographic record

VenueSoil Science Society of America Journal · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMineralization (soil science)Soil waterWater contentMoistureChemistrySoil testNitrogenEnvironmental chemistrySoil scienceEnvironmental scienceAgronomyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two commercially available ion exchange resin (IER) devices—Unibest resin capsules (Unibest, Inc., Bozeman, MT) and Plant Root Simulator (PRS) probe–ion exchange membranes (Western Ag Innovations, Inc., Saskatoon, Canada)—for measuring soil nutrient availability were compared to traditional soil NH 4 + and NO 3 − measurements during incubation of an Oklahoma tallgrass prairie soil at two temperatures (16° and 25°C) and two moisture contents (15 and 25% by weight). Nitrate dominated the soil mineral N pool in soils and in both IER devices. Soil extractable and resin capsule mineral N showed significant responses to both temperature and moisture whereas PRS probe mineral N showed responses to moisture only. Both devices were more sensitive to moisture than soil mineral N was. Neither device related well to N mineralization or the patterns of extractable mineral N over time. Possible reasons for the differences include the integration of soil mineral N over time in the IERs as opposed to snapshots in time for soil mineral N, spatial variation within the incubated soils, and the importance of solution contact with IERs.

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)0.002
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.291
Threshold uncertainty score0.540

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations75
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSoil Science Society of America JournalSame topicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsFrench-language works237,207