MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2793977563

Carbon dynamics of perennial grassland conversion for annual cropping

2012· article· en· W2793977563 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Trevor J. Fraser

Bibliographic record

VenueMspace (University of Manitoba) · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBioenergy crop production and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCroppingPerennial plantGrasslandEnvironmental scienceAgronomyAgroforestryAgricultureEcologyBiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sequestering atmospheric carbon in soil is an attractive option for mitigation of rising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations through agriculture. Perennial crops are more likely to gain carbon while annual crops are more likely to lose carbon. A pair of eddy covariance towers were set up near Winnipeg Manitoba, Canada to measure carbon flux over adjacent fertilized long-term perennial grass hay fields with high soil organic carbon. In 2009 the forage stand of one field (Treatment) was sprayed with herbicide, cut and bailed; following which cattle manure was applied and the land was tilled. The forage stand in the other field (Control) continued to be cut and bailed. Differences between net ecosystem productivity of the fields were mainly due to gross primary productivity; ecosystem respiration was similar for both fields. When biomass removals and manure applications are included in the carbon balance, the Treatment conversion lost 149 g C m^(-2) and whereas the Control sequestered 96 g C m^(-2), for a net loss of 245 g C m^(-2) over the June to December period (210 days). This suggests that perennial grass converted for annual cropping can lose more carbon than perennial grasses can sequester in a season.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.757
Threshold uncertainty score0.484

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.167 · 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMspace (University of Manitoba)Same topicBioenergy crop production and managementFrench-language works237,207