MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2592363366 · doi:10.1139/cjss10070

Probability distribution functions for short-term daily nitrous oxide fluxes in a prairie pothole agricultural landscape in western Canada

2011· article· en· W2592363366 on OpenAlexaffabout
Alan P. Moulin, Mario Tenuta, David A. Lobb, Adedeji Dunmola, P.I. Yapa

Bibliographic record

VenueBioOne Complete (BioOne) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil Geostatistics and Mapping
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceLog-normal distributionProbability distributionProbability density functionHydrology (agriculture)Physical geographyStatisticsGeographyMathematicsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Moulin, A., Tenuta, M., Lobb, D., Dunmola, A. and Yapa, P. 2011. Probability distribution functions for short-term daily nitrous oxide fluxes in a prairie pothole agricultural landscape in western Canada. Can. J. Soil Sci. 91: 303-307. Probability distributions of N2O fluxes are often non-normal due to large temporal and spatial variability of environmental factors. The most common approaches to statistical analyses of these fluxes in the scientific literature are to transform data with a log function, or conduct non-parametric tests. Analysis of N2O flux data for 128 sites within a 16-ha field, taken on 20 dates in 2005 and 2006 near Brandon, Manitoba, show that the Johnson Su and generalized log probability distributions provided the best fit for the majority of sample dates. The results of this research indicate that statistical analysis of N2O fluxes with the Johnson Su probability function should be considered as an alternative to the lognormal function.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.147

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.192
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.027 · 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

Citations3
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioOne Complete (BioOne)Same topicSoil Geostatistics and MappingFrench-language works237,207