MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2227896020 · doi:10.3390/su8010061

Long-Term Cropping Effects on Agricultural Sustainability in Alar Oasis of Xinjiang, China

2016· article· en· W2227896020 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Lu Gong, Guixiang He, Weiguo Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainability · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of British ColumbiaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsCroppingSustainabilityChinaTerm (time)AgricultureAgroforestryBusinessGeographyEnvironmental scienceEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Agricultural sustainability has become a major concern in arid regions of China. In order to better understand the influence of continuous cropping on soil quality, six experimental fields were established in the Alar Oasis of Xinjiang, including uncultivated land (as a zero year treatment duration) and five different continuous cropping years on cotton fields, with different cropping durations (5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 years, respectively). Thirteen soil indicators were selected including soil physicochemical properties, nutrient properties and enzymatic activities. The results show that duration of continuous cropping of cotton fields significantly influences a number of soil properties. Cultivation durations ranked according to soil quality indexes (SQI) are as follows: 15 years (0.828) > 20 years (0.816) > 10 years (0.668)> 5 years (0.548) > 25 years (0.377) > 0 years (0.205), and sustainable yield index (SYI) are as follows: 10 years (0.830) > 15 years (0.777) > 20 years (0.667) > 5 years (0.586) > 25 years (0.159).

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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations24
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainabilitySame topicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsFrench-language works237,207