Comparison of two gap-filling techniques for nitrous oxide fluxes from agricultural soil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Micrometeorological methods are ideally suited for continuous measurements of N2O fluxes, but gaps in the time series occur due to low-turbulence conditions, power failures, and adverse weather conditions. Two gap-filling methods including linear interpolation and artificial neural networks (ANN) were utilized to reconstruct missing N2O flux data from a corn–soybean–wheat rotation and evaluate the impact on annual N2O emissions from 2001 to 2006 at the Elora Research Station, ON, Canada. The single-year ANN method is recommended because this method captured flux variability better than the linear interpolation method (average R2 of 0.41 vs. 0.34). Annual N2O emission and annual bias resulting from linear and single-year ANN were compatible with each other when there were few and short gaps (i.e., percentage of missing values <30%). However, with longer gaps (>20 d), the bias error in annual fluxes varied between 0.082 and 0.344 kg N2O-N ha−1 for linear and 0.069 and 0.109 kg N2O-N ha−1 for single-year ANN. Hence, the single-year ANN with lower annual bias and stable approach over various years is recommended, if the appropriate driving inputs (i.e., soil temperature, soil water content, precipitation, N mineral content, and snow depth) needed for the ANN model are available.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".