Soil erodibility relationships on drumlin deposits in the Cape Caribou River area, Labrador
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Universal soil loss equation (USLE) soil erodibility (K) factors were computed from drumlin soils in the Cape Caribou River area, Labrador. Soil erodibility variation was investigated, using Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests, for three stratifications: (i) topographic position (TOP), (ii) mineral soil horizon (HOR), and (iii) soil texture (TEX). Topographic position with two substrata, drumlin summits (SUM) and drumlin side slopes (SID), was not significant. Horizons A, B and C and textural classes loamy sands (LS), sandy loams (SL) and loams (L) were significant. A log linear likelihood chi-square (G2) model was applied to investigate relationships of HOR and TEX. Partitioning of the G2 statistic revealed both significant and non-significant cells in the cross tabulation. Some sampling considerations for the determination of K factors are discussed. It is concluded that accepted field methods could enhance K factor determination in Labrador forest soil environments. Key words: Soil erodibility, K factor, drumlins, Labrador
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".