MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2283003389 · doi:10.7287/peerj.preprints.696v1

Modeling the irrigation requirements for an experimental site in Northern Alberta, Canada

2014· preprint· en· W2283003389 on OpenAlexaffabout
Michel Rahbeh, D. S. Chanasyk, Shane Patterson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIrrigationEnvironmental scienceWater tablePrecipitationGrowing seasonHydrology (agriculture)Table (database)GroundwaterGeologyAgronomyMeteorologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A combined methodology of the Root Zone Water Quality Model (RZWQM), the generation of stochastic rainfall realizations, and an historical meteorological record were used to determine the supplementary irrigation requirement for an experimental site located in northern Alberta. The site receives an annual rainfall of approximately 500 mm yr -1 , and contains a fluctuating water table. The simulated results showed maximum irrigation requirements of 270 mm, however, half that amount can be required during an average or wet growing season of mean rainfall of 350 and 500 mm, respectively. The irrigation requirements were influenced by rainfall amount and distribution, downward flux and the subsequent fluctuation of the water table and the depth of water table at the beginning of the growing season, which was influenced by the winter season precipitation. The simulated results suggested that a water table less than 2 m deep from the ground surface can significantly reduce the irrigation requirements. Therefore, the winter precipitation and initial depth of the water table are suitable indicators of the likely requirement of irrigation during the growing season.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.175

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies→French-language works237,207→