MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132448824 · doi:10.5539/jas.v5n2p56

Trend Effect and an Isotropy of Soil Particle Composition in the Chengdu Plain

2013· article· en· W2132448824 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Wenhong Li, Changquan Wang, Mei Yang, Lei Wang, Bing Li

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil Geostatistics and Mapping
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSiltAnisotropyIsotropyKrigingParticle (ecology)GeologySoil scienceInterpolation (computer graphics)MineralogyMathematicsGeomorphologyStatisticsPhysicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper studies the spatial variation characteristics of soil particle composition on both sides of Qingbaijiang River (Chengdu Xin Du District of Sichuan province) by using the geostatistical component of ArcGIS and GS software. The results have shown that the trends of sand contents in the east-west direction and the north-south direction were first order and second order, respectively. And the trends of both silt particle and clay particle contents were first order in the east-west direction, and second order in the north-south direction. The anisotropy semi variance models of sand particle content showed that the ranges in the long axis direction were 718.77 m and 677.01 m and the ranges in the short axis direction were 273.78 m and 276.63 m with first order and second order. The results showed that the difference between the ranges in the short axis direction and the ranges in long axis direction changed little, while the anisotropy semi variance model had longer ranges than the isotropy model with the trend parameters of first order. From the error analysis and the result that reflect regional and local trend, it indicated that Kriging interpolation method considering the study about soil particle composition along Qingbaijiang River with the second order trend effect was the best, comparing the contour maps of sand particle content under different trend effects and anisotropy parameters.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.874
Threshold uncertainty score0.094

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations5
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicSoil Geostatistics and MappingFrench-language works237,207