MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2070257082 · doi:10.2134/jeq2009.0144

Selecting and Applying Cesium‐137 Conversion Models to Estimate Soil Erosion Rates in Cultivated Fields

2010· article· en· W2070257082 on OpenAlexafffund
Sheng Li, David A. Lobb, Kevin H. D. Tiessen, B.G. McConkey

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Quality · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil erosion and sediment transport
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaMcGill UniversityAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
KeywordsErosionEnvironmental scienceSoil scienceTillageHydrology (agriculture)GeologyGeotechnical engineeringAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The fallout radionuclide cesium-137 ((137)Cs) has been successfully used in soil erosion studies worldwide. However, discrepancies often exist between the erosion rates estimated using various conversion models. As a result, there is often confusion in the use of the various models and in the interpretation of the data. Therefore, the objective of this study was to test the structural and parametrical uncertainties associated with four conversion models typically used in cultivated agricultural landscapes. For the structural uncertainties, the Soil Constituent Redistribution by Erosion Model (SCREM) was developed and used to simulate the redistribution of fallout (137)Cs due to tillage and water erosion along a simple two-dimensional (horizontal and vertical) transect. The SCREM-predicted (137)Cs inventories were then imported into the conversion models to estimate the erosion rates. The structural uncertainties of the conversion models were assessed based on the comparisons between the conversion-model-estimated erosion rates and the erosion rates determined or used in the SCREM. For the parametrical uncertainties, test runs were conducted by varying the values of the parameters used in the model, and the parametrical uncertainties were assessed based on the responsive changes of the estimated erosion rates. Our results suggest that: (i) the performance/accuracy of the conversion models was largely dependent on the relative contributions of water vs. tillage erosion; and (ii) the estimated erosion rates were highly sensitive to the input values of the reference (137)Cs level, particle size correction factors and tillage depth. Guidelines were proposed to aid researchers in selecting and applying the conversion models under various situations common to agricultural landscapes.

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)0.001
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 score0.730
Threshold uncertainty score0.168

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations30
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental QualitySame topicSoil erosion and sediment transportFrench-language works237,207