MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2176014744 · doi:10.4141/cjss2012-016

Prediction of soil nutrient regime based on a model of DEM-generated clay content for the province of Nova Scotia, Canada

2013· article· en· W2176014744 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Zhengyong Zhao, Muhammad Irfan Ashraf, Kevin Keys, Fan‐Rui Meng

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Soil Science · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil Geostatistics and Mapping
Canadian institutionsNova Scotia Department of AgricultureUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNova scotiaLandformDigital elevation modelVegetation (pathology)Soil scienceEnvironmental scienceField (mathematics)Hydrology (agriculture)Physical geographyRemote sensingGeologyGeographyGeomorphologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Zhao, Z., Ashraf, M. I., Keys, K. S. and Meng, F-R. 2013. Prediction of soil nutrient regime based on a model of DEM-generated clay content for the province of Nova Scotia, Canada. Can. J. Soil Sci. 93: 193–203. Soil nutrient regime (SNR) maps are widely required by ecological studies as well as forest growth and yield assessment. Traditionally, SNR is assessed in the field using vegetation indicators, topography and soil properties. However, field assessments are expensive, time consuming and not suitable for producing high-resolution SNR maps over a large area. The objective of this research was to develop a new model for producing high-resolution SNR maps over a large area (in this case, the province of Nova Scotia). The model used 10-m resolution clay content maps generated from digital elevation model data to capture local SNR variability (associated with topography) along with coarse-resolution soil maps to capture regional SNR variability (associated with differences in landform/parent material types). Field data from 1385 forest plots were used to calibrate the model and another 125 independent plots were used for model validation. Results showed field-identified SNRs were positively correlated with predicted clay content, with some variability associated with different landform/parent material types. Accuracy assessment showed that 63.7% of model-predicted SNRs were the same as field assessment, with 96.5% within ±1 class compared with field-identified SNRs. The predicted high-resolution SNR map was also able to capture the influence of topography on SNR which was not possible when predicting SNR from coarse-resolution soil maps alone.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.843

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.168 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations8
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Soil ScienceSame topicSoil Geostatistics and MappingFrench-language works237,207