MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2782862060 · doi:10.1002/ird.2200

Simulation of Nitrate‐N Leaching in No‐Till Fields with DRAINMOD‐N II in a Cold‐Humid Region

2018· article· en· W2782862060 on OpenAlexaffabout
Seyyed Ebrahim Hashemi Garmdareh, Raheleh Malekian, Ali Madani, Robert J. Gordon

Bibliographic record

VenueIrrigation and Drainage · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil and Water Nutrient Dynamics
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier UniversityMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceLeaching (pedology)Hydrology (agriculture)TillageOutflowDrainageGroundwaterNitrateGroundwater pollutionNutrientSoil waterAquiferAgronomySoil scienceChemistryGeographyGeologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Conservation agriculture, especially no‐tillage, has proven to become sustainable farming in many agricultural environments globally. In spite of advantages of no‐till systems, this practice may result in excess infiltration into the soil and can enhance the movement of mobile nutrients and some pesticides to subsurface drains and groundwater along preferential pathways. The goal of this study was to evaluate the capacity of DRAINMOD‐N II to simulate subsurface nitrate‐N leaching in no‐till fields in Truro, Nova Scotia, Canada, from 2003 to 2006. The model performance was first evaluated by comparing observed and simulated drain outflow data that is an essential prerequisite for the model to obtain a proper prediction of NO3‐N movement, and then by comparing observed and simulated NO3‐N concentration in no‐till fields using three statistical indices, relative root mean square error (RRMSE), average absolute deviation (AAD) and the correlation coefficient (R2). The RRMSE, AAD and R2 for the validation period were determined to be 1.09, 1.85 and 0.83 mm for drain outflow, and 1.43, 0.51 and 0.79 mg l−1 for NO3‐N concentration respectively. The results showed that DRAINMOD‐N II predicted NO3‐N leaching reasonably well in drainage outflow of no‐till fields over the whole period. Copyright © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.453
Threshold uncertainty score0.900

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIrrigation and DrainageSame topicSoil and Water Nutrient DynamicsFrench-language works237,207