MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2089869097 · doi:10.4141/s99-029

Tillage and cover crop impacts on aggregation of a sandy soil

2000· article· en· W2089869097 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Soil Science · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Management and Crop Yield
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTillageAgronomyPloughCover cropEnvironmental scienceZea maysSoil structureCropping systemNo-till farmingConventional tillageAggregate (composite)Soil waterCropMathematicsSoil scienceSoil fertilityBiologyMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In corn (Zea mays L.) – soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] – winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) rotations cultivated in sandy soil under three tillage systems, with and without cover cropping, the soil wind-erodible fraction (<0.85 mm) ranged from 78 to 96%. Proportion and wet-aggregate stability (WAS) of the 0.85- to 5.7-mm fraction both ranked no-till (8.1% of total soil weight and 49% water-stable) > chisel plow (6.7 and 39%) > conventional plow (5.3 and 35%). Cover cropping had little effect on dry aggregate size distribution or WAS. Key words: Zea mays, Secalecereale, soil structure, aggregate stability, cover crop, tillage

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)0.000
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 score0.857
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 spread0.190 · 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