MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2321993553 · doi:10.2166/wqrjc.2013.013

Comparison of runoff quantity and quality under annual cropping and forages

2013· article· en· W2321993553 on OpenAlexafffund
J. J. Miller, T. Curtis, D. S. Chanasyk

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Quality Research Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil and Water Nutrient Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
KeywordsTriticaleSurface runoffAgronomyHayForageEnvironmental scienceHordeum vulgareGrazingPerennial plantPoaceaeBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Conversion from annual cropping to perennial forages may be a beneficial management practice (BMP) to reduce runoff quantity and improve surface water quality. Runoff variables were determined in two 30 ha producer's fields over 4 years (2004–2007) using a rainfall simulator. Field 1 was cropped to barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) in 2004 and then an alfalfa (Medicago sp.) and grass mix used for hay and fall grazing was grown from 2005 to 2007. Field 2 was cropped to barley-winter triticale (WT) (Triticosecale Rimpavi Wittm.) in 2005 and alfalfa-grass for hay was grown in 2006 and 2007. Runoff variables measured were runoff depth, electrical conductivity, and concentrations and loads of total suspended solids, total N, total P, and dissolved reactive P fractions. Conversion from barley to alfalfa-grass for hay and fall grazing in Field 1 resulted in reductions for only 13% of the 10 runoff variables, 33% of runoff variables were unaffected, and 53% of variables were significantly increased. Conversion from barley-WT to alfalfa-grass used for hay in Field 2 significantly reduced 25% of the 10 variables, 40% were unaffected, and 35% were significantly increased. Converting from annual cropping to forage did not improve the majority of runoff variables.

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)0.005
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.767

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.183
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Quality Research JournalSame topicSoil and Water Nutrient DynamicsFrench-language works237,207