MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119395029 · doi:10.5539/enrr.v3n3p78

Characteristics of Vegetation Growing in Indeterminate Fallows in South-Central Zimbabwe

2013· article· en· W2119395029 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Simbarashe Mudyazhezha, Emmanuel Manzungu, Tawanda Chimombe, Linda Mtali, B. Tavirimirwa, S. Ncube

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironment and Natural Resources Research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil erosion and sediment transport
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuadratSpecies richnessSpecies evennessDiversity indexVegetation (pathology)Species diversityAbundance (ecology)GeographyEcologyBiologyShrub

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite widespread food insecurity in Zimbabwe, there is an increasing amount of agricultural land being left fallow for indeterminate periods of time. The objective of the study was to assess the characteristics of vegetation growing in indeterminate fallows in Chivi district in south-central Zimbabwe. One metre by one metre quadrats were used to assess the species composition of herbaceous species while 8 m × 8 m quadrats were used for woody species. Attributes that were assessed included frequency, abundance, density of different plant species from which were computed diversity indices (Shannon-Weiner index and Shannon evenness index). The density, Shannon-Weiner index and Shannon Evenness index), and species richness of the fallow land sites were significantly lower than those of the uncultivated land. However, there were no significant differences among fallow treatments. Species richness, Shannon Index, and Shannon’s Evenness Index showed a weak and non significant correlation with length of the fallow period. Woody species which were cleared during land preparation and repeated weeded during the cultivation years were absent in all fallows regardless of the fallow period.

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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.243
Threshold uncertainty score0.245

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironment and Natural Resources ResearchSame topicSoil erosion and sediment transportFrench-language works237,207