MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132684617 · doi:10.1139/x05-273

Soil physical property changes at the North American Long-Term Soil Productivity study sites: 1 and 5 years after compaction

2006· article· en· W2132684617 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Deborah S. Page‐Dumroese, Martin F. Jurgensen, Allan E. Tiarks, Felix Ponder, Felipe G. Sanchez, Robert L. Fleming, J. M. Kranabetter, Robert F. Powers, Douglas M. Stone, John D. Elioff, D. Andrew Scott

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Management and Crop Yield
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBulk densitySoil waterSoil compactionEnvironmental scienceSubsoilSoil scienceSoil textureSoil morphologyCompactionSoil structureWater contentInfiltration (HVAC)Soil fertilityGeologyGeotechnical engineeringMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The impact of forest management operations on soil physical properties is important to understand, since management can significantly change site productivity by altering root growth potential, water infiltration and soil erosion, and water and nutrient availability. We studied soil bulk density and strength changes as indicators of soil compaction before harvesting and 1 and 5 years after harvest and site treatment on 12 of the North American Long-Term Soil Productivity sites. Severe soil compaction treatments approached root-limiting bulk densities for each soil texture, while moderate compaction levels were between severe and preharvest values. Immediately after harvesting, soil bulk density on the severely compacted plots ranged from 1% less than to 58% higher than preharvest levels across all sites. Soil compaction increases were noticeable to a depth of 30 cm. After 5 years, bulk density recovery on coarse-textured soils was evident in the surface (0–10 cm) soil, but recovery was less in the subsoil (10–30 cm depth); fine-textured soils exhibited little recovery. When measured as a percentage, initial bulk density increases were greater on fine-textured soils than on coarser-textured soils and were mainly due to higher initial bulk density values in coarse-textured soils. Development of soil monitoring methods applicable to all soil types may not be appropriate, and more site-specific techniques may be needed for soil monitoring after disturbance.

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)0.001
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 score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.148

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations173
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicSoil Management and Crop YieldFrench-language works237,207