Bibliographic record
Abstract
Climate drives conservation outcomes. That's obvious. Climate is one of the primary factors in soil formation. Rainfall, temperature, growing season, and a host of other climatic factors determine, in large part, what conservation should or could achieve in a given location.Climate change, then, is a topic the Soil and Water Conservation Society should and has been engaged in. My first encounter with the Soil and Water Conservation Society and climate change came early in 1998—just before I came on board as executive director. I was invited to speak at a workshop on carbon sequestration in soil that the Society was hosting in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. That workshop was one of the first attempts to consolidate estimates of the contribution soil conservation could make to reducing concentrations of greenhouse gases by storing carbon in the soil. Participants concluded that soil conservation could store enough carbon to meet as much as 15 percent of the mitigation targets that the United States and Canada were expected, at that time, to achieve.That Soil and Water Conservation Society report was timely, to the point, and its message was heard within policy and scientific circles. It helped spark a great ...
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".