MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2890812089

Tillage impact on carbon sequestration on rolling landscapes of farm fields in Saskatchewan

2000· article· en· W2890812089 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Biqing Liang, B.G. McConkey, G. Padbury

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBioenergy crop production and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
KeywordsCarbon sequestrationTillageCarbon fibersEnvironmental scienceNatural resource economicsAgroforestryGeographyAgricultural engineeringAgronomyEconomicsEngineeringMathematicsCarbon dioxideEcology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Long term (10 to 25 years) rotation studies on the Canadian prairies have shown that conservation tillage and reduced fallow have, depending upon clay content and soil moisture deficits, sequestered from 0.3 to 0.7 Mg C ha-1yr-1 soil organic C (Liang et al., 1999a,b). However, since these studies were conducted on replicated and relative level research plots, it is questionable whether they reflect the reality of actual farm \nfields where landscapes and management practices often differ markedly from that on research plots. \nTherefore, the objective of this study was to quantify carbon sequestration as a function of conservation tillage on a range of typical soil-landscapes throughout Saskatchewan by comparing neighboring farmer’s fields with and without conservation tillage.

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)0.001
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 score0.105
Threshold uncertainty score0.212

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0010.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.224
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 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
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same topicBioenergy crop production and managementFrench-language works237,207