MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028471861 · doi:10.1080/09064710.2011.642001

An appropriate time-window for measuring soil CO<sub>2</sub>efflux: a case study on a Black soil in north-east China

2011· article· en· W2028471861 on OpenAlexaff
Xiuhuan Shi, Xiaoping Zhang, Xueming Yang, Neil B. McLaughlin, Aizhen Liang

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Agriculturae Scandinavica Section B - Soil & Plant Science · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsEffluxPloughEnvironmental scienceChemistrySoil scienceEnvironmental chemistryAgronomyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Soil CO2 efflux rate is influenced by soil temperature which varies with time within a day. In order to determine a measuring time-window which can represent the daily average soil CO2 efflux rate from a Black soil in north-east China, soil CO2 efflux rates from no-tillage (NT) and mouldboard plough tillage (MP) plots were measured at a 2-h interval over 48 h four times in the growing season of 2008. Results showed that during the course of measurements, NT soil had a higher soil CO2 efflux rate than MP soil. Daily average soil CO2 efflux rate was matched relatively well with the CO2 efflux rate occurring between 09:00 h and 13:00 h, and between 19:00 h and 23:00 h. Our results indicate that the soil CO2 efflux rate measured between 09:00 and 11:00 h represents the daily average soil CO2 efflux rate during sunny days. When the measurements were conducted outside this time window, a procedure to adjust the CO2 efflux rates measured between 07:00 and 21:00 h (outside of the optimum time-window) to estimate daily average soil CO2 efflux rate is described.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.159

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Citations11
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa Agriculturae Scandinavica Section B - Soil & Plant ScienceSame topicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsFrench-language works237,207