MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990608268 · doi:10.2134/agronj2005.0142

An Automated Template Approach for Generating Web‐Based Conservation Planning Worksheets

2006· article· en· W1990608268 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
J. J. Steiner, Toshimi Minoura, Mariko Imaeda

Bibliographic record

VenueAgronomy Journal · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRangeland and Wildlife Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsWorksheetComputer scienceScripting languageWorld Wide WebDatabaseWeb pageWeb applicationOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An automated web‐form generator system was created to rapidly produce dynamic web‐based inventory and assessment worksheets that are used by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to describe the condition of natural resources on farms and ranches. These worksheets are used by NRCS as part of the criteria for creating a conservation plan to qualify landowners for payments under the USDA Farm Bill Conservation Title. Presently, most worksheets are filled out by hand or in personal computer spreadsheets. If worksheets such as these were available over the web, landowners could also self‐assess the conditions on their farms or ranches before requiring assistance of NRCS conservation planners or technical service providers. Because many conservation worksheets have a similar style and behavior, we created an automated web‐script generator that produces a dynamic web‐page worksheet from a common template file and a configuration file. A worksheet‐specific configuration file provides the details for the worksheet. The template, configuration files, and web scripts are all in PHP (PHP hypertext processor). Each configuration file required approximately 5 h to program, a savings of more than 4 d compared with a web‐based worksheet programmed individually with a scripting language. In this way, various conservation worksheets can be quickly created for the web, as well as be easily maintained. As an example, we produced a suite of assessment worksheets used by Oregon NRCS with our automated web‐form conservation worksheet system. Those worksheets are accessible at: http://yukon.een.orst.edu/ms_apps/wq_indexes/forms/index_menu.html (verified 5 May 2006).

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.121

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0360.017

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.235 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations4
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAgronomy JournalSame topicRangeland and Wildlife ManagementFrench-language works237,207