MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058336967 · doi:10.1080/00103620701588502

Organic Carbon Dynamics along a Toposequence in a Peri‐urban Site

2007· article· en· W2058336967 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Alie Kamara, Edward R. Rhodes, Patrick A. Sawyerr

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsTotal organic carbonSoil waterSoil carbonAggregate (composite)Environmental scienceSoil scienceUltisolAlfisolMineralogyEnvironmental chemistryChemistryMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The pattern of carbon (C) storage in soils has implications for agriculture and the environment. Dynamics of organic C, in the 0‐ to 20‐cm soil depth along a toposequence in a peri urban site in Sierra Leone, West Africa, were studied. Organic C was determined by the dry‐combustion method on the following aggregate size fractions: whole soil (<2000 µm), 250–2000 µm, 53–250 µm, and <53 µm. Mean organic C content of whole soil ranged from 4.8% on the backslope to 9.3% on the toeslope. Organic C content of aggregate size fractions increased with decreasing aggregate size. The amount of soil and organic C present in aggregate size fractions, at all positions on the toposequence, decreased with decreasing aggregate size. In general, convex upper slopes had lower contents and amounts of organic C compared to lower concave areas. This study provided benchmark levels and patterns against which changes resulting from imminent urbanization can be measured.

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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations2
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunications in Soil Science and Plant AnalysisSame topicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsFrench-language works237,207