Physical attributes of soil under amazon forest conversion for different crop systems in southern Amazonas, Brazil
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The conversion of forested areas into cropping systems modifies the soil physical attributes and affects the environmental and economic sustainability of agricultural activity. Thus, this work aimed to evaluate the modifications caused in the physical attributes of the soil in the area of guarana, cupuacu, and annatto compared with forest area in southern Amazonas. In the areas of forest and guarana meshes of 90 m × 70 m and regular spacing between the sampling points of 10 m × 10 m, in the area of annatto meshes of 90 m × 56 m and spacing of 10 m × 8 m, for cupuacu meshes of 54 m × 42 m, with spacing between the sampling points of 6 m × 6 m. The samples were collected in the depths of 0.00–0.05, 0.05–0.10, and 0.10–0.20 m, with 80 sampling points in each area, making 960 samples in the four areas. The cupuacu area most closely resembled the most diverse aspects of soil physical attributes with the forest area, and this was noticeable through the averaging test along with the principal component analysis, thus indicating that this crop is the least harmful to the studied soil, as well as the adopted systems of cultivation cause modifications mostly superficially, being these modifications little noticeable in layers superior to 10 cm.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 it