MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2070637428 · doi:10.13031/2013.22355

SOIL CONE INDEX ESTIMATION FOR DIFFERENT TILLAGE SYSTEMS

2006· article· en· W2070637428 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Arun Kumar, Ying Chen, Shafiqur Rahman

Bibliographic record

VenueASABE/CSBE North Central Intersectional Meeting · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Management and Crop Yield
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTillageSoil scienceSoil compactionBulk densitySiltCompactionEnvironmental scienceWater contentRegression analysisLinear regressionIndex (typography)MathematicsSoil waterGeotechnical engineeringStatisticsGeologyAgronomyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Soil cone index (CI) is a mechanical property which affects soil compaction and plant root development. In this study, data reported in the literature relating CI to tillage practices were compiled. Two different tillage practices were included and they were no-tillage and conventional tillage. Based on the literature data, linear regression equations were proposed to estimate CI for each tillage system. Those equations incorporate basic soil variables such as texture and physical properties. Values of CI decrease with the increase in clay content, and increase with the increase in sand and silt contents. CI varies directly with bulk density and depth, and inversely with moisture content. The regression equations will be validated with field data from Manitoba.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.189 · 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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueASABE/CSBE North Central Intersectional MeetingSame topicSoil Management and Crop YieldFrench-language works237,207