MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2527834100 · doi:10.1139/cjss-2016-0018

Assessment of the drainage capacity of cranberry fields: Problem identification using soil clustering and development of a new drainage criterion<sup>1</sup>

2016· article· en· W2527834100 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Yann Périard, Silvio José Gumière, Alain N. Rousseau, M. Caillier, Jacques Gallichand, Jean Caron

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Soil Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBerry genetics and cultivation research
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche ScientifiqueUniversité LavalAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDrainageIdentification (biology)Environmental scienceSoil classificationCluster analysisSoil scienceHydrology (agriculture)Soil waterMathematicsGeologyGeotechnical engineeringStatisticsEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the last few years, advanced knowledge in cranberry field hydrology has lead to substantial increase in production. Much of this progress has come from knowing the relationship between drainage capacity and soil profile properties. However, drainage problems can occur and an appropriate diagnosis remains essential for making recommendations adapted to each soil type. The objectives of this study were to (1) classify soil profiles under cranberry production and (2) identify diagnostic variables related to drainage capacity. To diagnose and classify drainage capacity, profiles were characterized for many physicochemical and hydraulic properties using a cluster analysis. Results indicate that a criterion can be defined and used to assess drainage capacity with respect to a soil classification scheme based on physicochemical and hydraulic properties. The methodology developed in this study provides a framework to identify local drainage problem and solutions based on soil characteristics.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.923
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Soil ScienceSame topicBerry genetics and cultivation researchFrench-language works237,207