MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129215799 · doi:10.4141/cjps2011-191

Short Communication: Comparative soil water use by annual crops at a semiarid site in Montana

2012· article· en· W2129215799 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Perry R. Miller, Jeffrey Holmes

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicTurfgrass Adaptation and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgronomySativumSunflowerSpring (device)Environmental scienceSoil waterHelianthus annuusCropSummer fallowWater usePisumCroppingBiologyHorticultureAgricultureEcologySoil science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Miller, P. R. and Holmes, J. A. 2012. Short Communication: Comparative soil water use by annual crops at a semiarid site in Montana. Can. J. Plant Sci. 92: 803–807. Results for soil water use in the semiarid northern Great Plains are presented in detailed tabular format for 15 crops in an ideal environment for comparative water use assessment. The effective rooting depth of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) varied relative to spring wheat; it was often similar and never less. Sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) averaged 43 mm greater soil water use below 0.9 m compared with spring wheat. Conversely, lentil (Lens culinaris Medik.) and pea (Pisum sativum L.) averaged 27 mm and 48 mm less soil water than spring wheat to a 1.2-m soil depth, respectively. Observed differences in effective rooting depth for alternative crops carry important implications for wheat-based cropping systems.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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 head0.225
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations13
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicTurfgrass Adaptation and ManagementFrench-language works237,207