MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Determination of organic carbon and nitrogen in particulate organic matter and particle size fractions of Brookston clay loam soil using infrared spectroscopy

2012· article· en· W2043955679 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Soil Science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil Geostatistics and Mapping
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaChinese Academy of Sciences
KeywordsLoamTotal organic carbonParticle sizeChemistryPartial least squares regressionSiltNitrogenSoil carbonSoil testSoil organic matterParticulatesCalibrationOrganic matterCarbon fibersFraction (chemistry)Analytical Chemistry (journal)MineralogyEnvironmental chemistrySoil scienceSoil waterMaterials scienceEnvironmental scienceChromatographyGeologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to determine whether models developed from infrared spectroscopy could be used to estimate organic carbon (C) content, total nitrogen (N) content and the C:N ratio in the particulate organic matter (POM) and particle size fraction samples of Brookston clay loam. The POM model was developed with 165 samples, and the particle size fraction models were developed using 221 samples. Soil organic C and total N contents in the POM and particle size fractions (sand, 2000–53 µm; silt, 53–2 µm; clay, <2 µm) were determined by using dry combustion techniques. The bulk soil samples were scanned from 4000 to 400 cm −1 for mid‐infrared (MIR) spectra and from 8000 to 4000 cm −1 for near‐infrared (NIR) spectra. Partial least squares regression (PLSR) analysis and the ‘leave‐one‐out' cross‐validation procedure were used for the model calibration and validation. Organic C and N content and C:N ratio in the POM were well predicted with both MIR‐ and NIR‐PLSR models ( = 0.84–0.92; = 0.78–0.87). The predictions of organic C content in soil particle size fractions were also very good for the model calibration ( = 0.84–0.94 for MIR and = 0.86–0.92 for NIR) and model validation ( = 0.79–0.94 for MIR and = 0.84–0.91 for NIR). The prediction of MIR‐ and NIR‐PLSR models for the N content and the C:N ratio in the sand and clay fractions was also satisfactory ( = 0.73–0.88; = 0.67–0.85). However, the predictions for the N content and C:N ratio in the silt fraction were poor ( = 0.23–0.55; = 0.20–0.40). The results indicate that both MIR and NIR methods can be used as alternative methods for estimating organic C and total N in the POM and particle size fractions of soil samples. However, the NIR model is better for estimating organic C and N in POM and sand fractions than the MIR model, whereas the MIR model is superior to the NIR model for estimating organic C in silt and clay fractions and N in clay fractions.

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 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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.351
Threshold uncertainty score0.267

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.222 · 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