Agroecosystems and Land Resources of the Northern Great Plains
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The northern Great Plains have long been dominated by conventional tillage systems and cereal‐based rotations including summer fallow. Over the last decade, however, the use of conservation tillage systems has markedly increased and, through improved moisture storage, has provided an opportunity for more diversified extended rotations including oilseed, pulse, and forage crops throughout the region. Considerable research is being carried out to assess the adaptability of these new crops and to develop appropriate management strategies. Typically, this type of agronomic research is carried out at plot‐sized research sites, with the findings then being extrapolated to surrounding regions where growing conditions are thought to be reasonably similar. Because the environment itself largely dictates the success of a particular cropping system, extrapolation requires knowledge of the environmental conditions of the region and, in particular, the interaction of environmental components of soil and climate in relation to specific crop requirements. This paper describes 14 agroecoregions in the northern Great Plains and provides an initial framework for extrapolating agronomic information at broad regional scales. Because climate is the dominant crop production factor in the region, most of the agroecosystems represent broad climatic zones. Each agroecoregion is described in terms of its soil and landscape characteristics, with a particular focus being given to likely key environmental parameters related to the production of the new oilseed, pulse, and forage crops being introduced in the region.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it