MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Soil Phosphorus Fertility Degradation: A Geographic Information System‐Based Assessment

2000· article· en· W2095449112 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Sasha Dawn Brown, H. Schreier, P. B. Shah

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Quality · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil and Water Nutrient Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceSoil fertilitySoil retrogression and degradationLand degradationLand useSoil mapWatershedSoil typeHydrology (agriculture)Soil waterSoil scienceEcologyGeologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Soil phosphorus is a critical macronutrient limiting agricultural productivity in many parts of Nepal. This study evaluates a geographic information system (GIS)‐based approach to assess soil P degradation risk as influenced by site factors and human land use impacts. The status of P fertility in a Nepalese watershed was evaluated by stratifying the soil analysis by soil type, elevation, aspect, and land use (irrigated or rainfed agriculture, rangeland, and forests). Human impacts were shown to be significant, and with GIS overlay techniques it was possible to produce a soil P status map based on land use and soil type. Some 27% of the area was found to be deficient in P. Soil nutrient budgets displaying annual surplus or deficit conditions for the common crops were combined with the soil fertility map to derive a soil P degradation risk map. Low P conditions with high annual deficits posed the greatest degradation risk, while adequate P status with high annual deficits were of more long‐term concern. Forty‐eight percent of the area was considered at low risk because of adequate conditions and minimal deficits for P. In contrast, some 36% of the study area had a high short‐term risk for degradation because of the low status and high annual deficit in P. Given the dynamics of soil fertility, the site factor approach used in combination with soil analysis, nutrient budget calculations based on farm interview data, and GIS overlay techniques provided a unique way of assessing long‐term soil P degradation risks.

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)0.002
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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations16
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental QualitySame topicSoil and Water Nutrient DynamicsFrench-language works237,207