MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993329179 · doi:10.1155/2010/737096

The Effect of Earthworm (<i>Lumbricus terrestris</i>L.) Population Density and Soil Water Content Interactions on Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Agricultural Soils

2010· article· lv· W1993329179 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Andrew K. Evers, Tyler Demers, Andrew M. Gordon, Naresh V. Thevathasan

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied and Environmental Soil Science · 2010
Typearticle
Languagelv
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMcGill University
KeywordsLumbricus terrestrisEisenia andreiPopulationEarthwormAlgorithmGeologyMathematicsPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Earthworms may have an influence on the production of N2O , a greenhouse gas, as a result of the ideal environment contained in their gut and casts for denitrifier bacteria. The objective of this study was to determine the relationship between earthworm (Lumbricus terrestrisL.) population density, soil water content and N2O emissions in a controlled greenhouse experiment based on population densities (90 to 270 individuals m−2 ) found at the Guelph Agroforestry Research Station (GARS) from 1997 to 1998. An experiment conducted at considerably higher than normal densities of earthworms revealed a significant relationship between earthworm density, soil water content and N2O emissions, with mean emissions increasing to 43.5 g ha−1 day−1 at 30 earthworms 0.0333 m−2 at 35% soil water content. However, a second experiment, based on the density of earthworms at GARS, found no significant difference in N2O emissions (5.49 to 6.99 g ha−1 day−1 ) aa a result of density and 31% soil water content.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations8
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied and Environmental Soil ScienceSame topicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsFrench-language works237,207