Bibliographic record
Abstract
To understand the progress of the global soil respiration,provide a reference for the researchers of related fields,the article presented quantitative analysis of papers on the soil respiration research including article variation tendency,nations and organizations,periodical distribution,author,paper influence and research topic from 1982 to 2011 based on the Web of Science data source,by using the bibliometric tools such as the database analysis tools,Netdraw and CitespaceII.The results showed that,in the past 30 years,the annual number of articles on international soil respiration research was in line with the law of exponential growth,the America and Germany had stronger impact on international soil respiration research and their quality was better,the America was the international center of the cooperative research in soil respiration,followed by the Germany and Canada,two journals with high quality are Journal of Global Change Biology and Soil Biology and Biochemistry.The numbers of papers on soil respiration research in China was ranked the second in the whole world,studying in this field of the Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research of the Chinese Acad Sci was in the top level of that in domestic,which was worthy of attention.The international research of soil respiration concentrated on carbon dioxide flux measurement,forest or ecological system,the relationship of climate change,atmospheric CO2 and soil respiration,influence factors of soil physical or chemical properties(organic,nitrogen,decomposition),temperature and microbial biomass on soil respiration.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.174 | 0.237 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".