MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2883965954 · doi:10.1139/cjss-2018-0001

Effect of crop and residue type on nitrous oxide emissions from rotations in the semi-arid Canadian prairies

2018· article· en· W2883965954 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
R. Lemke, L. Liu, V.S. Baron, S. S. Malhi, R. Farrell

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Soil Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of SaskatchewanAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCanolaAgronomySativumField peaPisumNitrous oxideCrop residueBrassicaCropResidue (chemistry)BiologyChemistryHorticultureAgriculture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Crop rotations on the Canadian prairies commonly include sequences of pulses, oilseeds, and cereals; however, limited information is available regarding the influence that different crop types and sequences may have on direct nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions. A 3 yr field study was conducted on a site near Scott, SK, to compare N2O emissions from selected crop phases of rotations containing pea (Pisum sativum L.), wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), and canola (Brassica napus L.) and to examine the potential influence of these residues on N2O emissions during the subsequent crop phase. Nitrous oxide losses from N-fertilized canola or wheat crops were generally higher than losses from pea or the control treatments. Nitrous oxide losses from N-fertilized wheat or canola crops grown on pea residue were comparable or lower than losses from N-fertilized wheat or canola crops grown on wheat residues. Cumulative N2O loss over the 3 yr was significantly higher from N-fertilized wheat grown on canola compared with pea or wheat residues. Losses from wheat grown on canola residue were 67% and 56% higher than from wheat grown on pea or wheat residue, respectively. This indicates that the emission factors used to estimate direct N2O loss may need to be adjusted upwards for N-fertilized crops grown on canola compared with wheat or pea residues.

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)0.001
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 score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.114

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations16
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Soil ScienceSame topicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsFrench-language works237,207