MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042898237 · doi:10.1002/ird.497

<i>RETRACTED:</i>ESTIMATION OF IRRIGATION REQUIREMENTS FOR SOME CROPS IN SOUTHERN QUEBEC USING CROPWAT

2009· article· en· W2042898237 on OpenAlexaffabout
R. Doria, Chandra A. Madramootoo

Post-publication record

NatureRetraction
ReasonError in Methods;Error in Results and/or Conclusions;
Date10/10/2012 0:00
Flagged by OpenAlex?Yes

Source: Retraction Watch, joined by DOI. OpenAlex records retraction as is_retracted, a boolean over a state space with at least four values, so it cannot express an expression of concern, a correction or a reinstatement; it reports them as false, which reads as “fine”.

Bibliographic record

VenueIrrigation and Drainage · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIrrigationEstimationDrainageWater resource managementAgricultural engineeringEnvironmental scienceOperations researchEngineeringBiologyAgronomyEcologySystems engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The following article from Irrigation and Drainage , Estimation of irrigation requirements for some crops in Southern Quebec using CROPWAT by R. O. Doria and C. A. Madramootoo, published online on 6 May 2009 in Wiley Online Library ( wileyonlinelibrary.com ), has been retracted by agreement between the authors, the journal Chair of the Editorial Board, Prof. Bart Schultz and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. The retraction has been agreed due to problems with the model simulation that potentially invalidate the conclusions.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.046
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.693
Threshold uncertainty score0.611

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.046
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0070.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.010

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations7
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIrrigation and DrainageSame topicHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207