MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029043442 · doi:10.1890/07-1133.1

A SIMPLE SOIL ORGANIC-MATTER MODEL FOR BIOMASS DATA ASSIMILATION IN COMMUNITY-LEVEL CARBON CONTRACTS

2008· article· en· W2029043442 on OpenAlexaff
Pierre Traoré, W. McNair Bostick, James W. Jones, Jawoo Koo, Kalifa Goı̈ta, Boubié Vincent Bado

Bibliographic record

VenueEcological Applications · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceData assimilationSoil carbonCarbon sequestrationSoil waterSoil organic matterOrganic matterFertilizerGreenhouse gasSoil scienceAtmospheric sciencesEcologyAgronomyCarbon dioxideMeteorologyBiologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Soil carbon (C) sequestration has been proposed as a transitional win-win strategy to help replenish organic-matter content in depleted agricultural soils and counter increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases. Data assimilation and remote sensing can reduce uncertainty in sequestered C mass estimates, but simple soil organic carbon (SOC) models are required to make operational predictions of tradeable amounts over large, heterogenous areas. Our study compared the performance of RothC26.3 and a reduced compartmental model on an 11-year fertilizer trial in subhumid West Africa. Root mean square error (RMSE) differences of 0.05 Mg C/ha between models on total SOC predictions suggest that for contractual purposes, SOC dynamics can be simulated by a two-pool structure with labile and stable components. Faster (seasonal) and slower (semicentennial and beyond) rates can be approximated by constants as instantaneous and infinite decay. In these systems, simulations indicate that cereal residue incorporation holds most potential for mitigation of transient C loss associated with recent land conversion to agriculture.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.373
Threshold uncertainty score0.832

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.175 · 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 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

Citations12
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcological ApplicationsSame topicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsFrench-language works237,207