MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2336453710 · doi:10.25165/ijabe.v5i4.590

Comparing predictions of long-term soil carbon dynamics under various cropping management systems using K-model and CENTURY

2012· article· en· W2336453710 on OpenAlexaff
Tao Li, Xiaomei Li, Yongsheng Feng

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational journal of agricultural and biological engineering · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoil carbonEnvironmental scienceCroppingCarbon fibersDecompositionSoil scienceAgricultural managementCropping systemClimate changeCarbon cycleSoil waterAgricultureMathematicsEcologyEcosystemAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is a strong demand for accurate estimates of long-term changes in soil organic carbon (SOC) with different agricultural practices under different soil and climate conditions. A process and analytic model, K-model, including a non-compartmental algorithm of soil carbon decomposition, was developed to simulate the changes of SOC under different cropping and soil management practices. This study evaluates the performance of K-model by comparing its predictions on SOC with measurements and predictions of CENTURY model, which is widely used for the similar purposes. Both K-model and CENTURY can predict the dynamics of SOC when site-specific soil and climate data are used to initialize simulations. Very similar annual carbon decomposition rates were simulated by the single carbon pool K-model and the 3-carbon pool CENTURY model. However, compared with experimental measurements of SOC, K-model produces relative smaller errors than CENTURY (<0.1 kg C m-2 vs. 0.08-0.48 kg C m-2, and within

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)0.000
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 score0.310
Threshold uncertainty score0.196

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational journal of agricultural and biological engineeringSame topicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsFrench-language works237,207