MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2899536383 · doi:10.1139/cjss-2018-0101

Quantitative and qualitative comparison of three wet aggregate stability methods using a long-term tillage system and crop rotation experiment

2018· article· en· W2899536383 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Laura L. Van Eerd, Amanda H. DeBruyn, Lance Ouellette, David C. Hooker, Darren E. Robinson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Soil Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Management and Crop Yield
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLoamTillagePloughAggregate (composite)Crop rotationStability (learning theory)Environmental scienceSoil scienceCropMathematicsAgronomyAgricultural engineeringSoil waterMaterials scienceEngineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Automated wet-sieving is preferred for this clay loam soil due to better sensitivity and savings (time and disposables) despite a larger capital investment. Rotations with greater frequency of winter wheat and no-till compared with conventional plow system had greater wet aggregate stability values, indicating better surface soil quality.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.148
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations11
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Soil ScienceSame topicSoil Management and Crop YieldFrench-language works237,207