MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2609228562 · doi:10.1139/cjss-2016-0108

A DECISION TREE-BASED APPROACH TO CALCULATE NITROUS OXIDE FLUXES FROM CHAMBER MEASUREMENTS

2017· article· en· W2609228562 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
G. S. Cambareri, Claudia Wagner‐Riddle, C. F. Drury, John D. Lauzon, William Salas

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Soil Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil and Water Nutrient Dynamics
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversity of Guelph
FundersGovernment of Canada
KeywordsFlux (metallurgy)Linear regressionNitrous oxideNonlinear regressionStatisticsMathematicsEnvironmental scienceRegression analysisChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Soil nitrous oxide (N2O) fluxes are commonly measured with nonsteady state chambers using slope values derived from linear or quadratic regression, fitted to the change in N2O concentration over time (dC/dt); however, these methods frequently underestimate N2O flux values. Here, we propose a decision tree-based model (DTBM) to better match curve shape with linear and nonlinear models to estimate dC/dt. The DTBM was compared with linear, quadratic regression, and the Hutchinson–Mosier (H–M) equation. The objectives were to (i) evaluate curve shape classification; (ii) evaluate dC/dt response to uncertainty, and (iii) determine method effect on cumulative N2O emissions and emission factor. Curve shapes with increasing N2O concentration over time had the highest proportion of data (52%–55%). Mean N2O flux calculated with DTBM showed to be less responsive to data variability, and therefore, more stable than the other methods. Data classification included in DTBM offered an improved method for calculating cumulative N2O emissions in low-flux situations, whereas under a high-flux situation, all methods tested were acceptable to calculate N2O emissions. The DTBM proved to be a robust method of matching each data type with the best model for calculating an individual flux and to accurately calculate cumulative N2O emissions.

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)0.002
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Soil Science→Same topicSoil and Water Nutrient Dynamics→French-language works237,207→