MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2566565830 · doi:10.1515/ahr-2015-0004

Determination Of Plant Available Soil Water Storage In Agricultural Land Of The Nitra River Catchment

2015· article· en· W2566565830 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Andrej Tárník, Dušan Igaz

Bibliographic record

VenueActa horticulturae et regiotecturae · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysics and Gravity Measurements
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersVedecká Grantová Agentúra MŠVVaŠ SR a SAVAgentúra na Podporu Výskumu a Vývoja
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceHydrology (agriculture)Drainage basinWater contentSoil waterWater storageQuarter (Canadian coin)AgricultureSoil scienceGeologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Soil water storage and its spatial pattern is one of the biggest tasks in agricultural field of study. Correct spatial interpretation and quantification of soil water storage are considered crucial for correct hydrological zonation of agricultural lands. This paper is focused on determination of amount of plants available soil water in the Nitra River Catchment in 2013. Available soil water storage was computed for each quarter of the year (I.–IV.; V.–VIII.; IX.–XII.) for 60 cm soil horizon. Amount of available water was determined as a difference between actual soil moisture and hydrolimits of water availability. Actual soil moisture was interpolated from point’s values from net of hydrological stations in the Nitra River Catchment. Limited water availability was calculated by retention curves from soil samples taken in the Catchment. Available soil water storage was the highest in the first quarter (36.74 mm). In the second quarter, it decreased to 26.93 mm and in the third quarter it was only 4.11 mm. In the fourth quarter, it increased to 30.13 mm.

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 score0.160
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.179 · 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

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa horticulturae et regiotecturaeSame topicGeophysics and Gravity MeasurementsFrench-language works237,207