MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2415771777 · doi:10.5539/jas.v8n7p30

Soil Water Storage in Soybean Crop Measured by Polymer Tensiometers and Estimated by Agrometeorological Methods

2016· article· en· W2415771777 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ana Paula Schwantes, Klaus Reichardt, Durval Dourado Neto, Angélica Durigon, Victor Meriguetti Pinto

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Management and Crop Yield
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
KeywordsTensiometer (surface tension)Environmental scienceWater balanceSoil waterWater potentialEvapotranspirationHydrology (agriculture)Water storageLysimeterSoil scienceGeotechnical engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The estimation of soil water status in cropped areas continues to be challenging for soil and climate scientists. This study contributes to this issue estimating soil water storage by the water balance of Thornthwaite and Mather, Rijtema and Aboukhaled, and Dourado and de Jong van Lier, combined with crop potential evapotranspiration estimated by Penman-Monteith, to compare them with soil water storage values calculated from polymer tensiometer data of a soybean crop field experiment. The experiment was conducted in Piracicaba, SP, with tensiometers installed at 0.05, 0.15 and 0.3 m depths. Results show that the tensiometers presented good performance to measure soil water pressure head in the whole range of the available water capacity for the crop. The tensiometer presents the advantage of allowing measurements of soil water storage in layers, in contraposition to climatologic water balance calculations which assume one single layer. Rijtema and Aboukhaled presented the best correlation with the water storage estimated from tensiometer data.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicSoil Management and Crop YieldFrench-language works237,207