MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097710829 · doi:10.1002/hyp.6068

Assessment of peat compressibility: is there an easy way?

2005· article· en· W2097710829 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueHydrological Processes · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPeatlands and Wetlands Ecology
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
FundersCanadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
KeywordsPeatCompressibilityBulk densitySoil scienceWater contentGeotechnical engineeringGeologyMineralogyEnvironmental scienceSoil waterThermodynamicsPhysicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Peat compression can significantly alter the hydraulic parameters that govern flow and storage of water. Physical properties of peat (bulk density, state of decomposition (von Post number, vP) and fibre content) were assessed to determine whether they can be used as indicators of peat compressibility. Bulk density and vP were related to each other (positively), and within a given core were related (negatively) to compressibility. Peat from different locations exhibited different compressibility characteristics for a given value of bulk density or vP. Fibre content was unrelated to bulk density, vP, or to peat compressibility. It was concluded that more commonly and relatively easily measured soil parameters are not good indicators of soil compressibility. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

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)0.0100.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.259 · 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