MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113752163 · doi:10.6000/1927-5129.2014.10.43

Capacity of the Nearby Infrared Spectroscopy (NIRS) Red for the Prediction of some Properties of Burned Soils in a Semi-Arid Area of Western Algeria

2014· article· en· W2113752163 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Khéloufi Benabdeli

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Basic & Applied Sciences · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReforestationEnvironmental scienceSoil waterVegetation (pathology)Disturbance (geology)AridEcosystemAgroforestryForest ecologyDesertificationVulnerability (computing)Pine forestForestrySoil scienceEcologyGeographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The forestry sector in Algeria is confronted for the years 1965 to a resurgence of the fires that destroy averaged 48 000 ha per year, or 12% of forest areas. As a result of repeated fires, a pyrophyte vegetation develops on degraded soils and from which the spontaneous regeneration of forest stands and reforestation are very difficult. The Algerian forest sustainable management must therefore be informed by an assessment of the physico-chemical quality of burned soils and the vulnerability of microbial activities in this disturbance Any rehabilitation or regeneration of the burned forest ecosystems program must take into consideration the impact of the fires on the ground [1] and therefore evaluate a large number of soil properties [2]. The main objective of this study was to evaluate the ability of spectroscopy in the near infra-red to predict the time since the last fire and burned some microbiological characteristics of soil. This study is interested in the pine forests of the Algerian semi arid floor Aleppo pines. Promising results have shown a prediction rather senssible of the time since the last fire. The advantages of the SPIR are many. This method is fast, inexpensive and non-destructive.

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)0.003
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score0.433

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.208
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

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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Basic & Applied SciencesSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207