MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3048633793 · doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2020.07.003

Approaches and concepts of modelling denitrification: increased process understanding using observational data can reduce uncertainties

2020· article· en· W3048633793 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen J. Del Grosso, Ward Smith, David Kraus, Raia Silvia Massad, Iris Vogeler, Kathrin Fuchs

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Environmental Sustainability · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil and Water Nutrient Dynamics
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersKarlsruhe Institute of Technology
KeywordsDenitrificationBiogeochemical cycleEnvironmental scienceScope (computer science)Representation (politics)Vegetation (pathology)Process (computing)Computer scienceBiochemical engineeringEnvironmental engineeringEngineeringChemistryEnvironmental chemistryNitrogen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Denitrification is a key but poorly quantified component of the N cycle. Because it is difficult to measure the gaseous (NOx, N2O, N2) and soluble (NO3) components of denitrification with sufficient intensity, models of varying scope and complexity have been developed and applied to estimate how vegetation cover, land management and environmental factors such as soil type and weather interact to control these variables. In this paper we assess the strengths and limitations of different modeling approaches, highlight major uncertainties, and suggest how different observational methods and process-based understanding can be combined to better quantify N cycling. Representation of how biogeochemical (e.g. org. C., pH) and physical (e.g. soil structure) factors influence denitrification rates and product ratios combined with ensemble approaches may increase accuracy without requiring additional site level model inputs.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
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 head0.352
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.001 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations58
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in Environmental SustainabilitySame topicSoil and Water Nutrient DynamicsFrench-language works237,207