Macroaggregate persistence: Definition and applications to describe soil surface dynamics
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
Macroaggregates (diameter > 0.25 mm) help the soil surface to resist erosive forces, but their contribution to soil surface stability changes with time because macroaggregate formation and disintegration is a dynamic process. Surface macroaggregates can be visualized by advanced image analysis, a non-invasive method to track aggregates. The objective of this study was to develop a mathematical method to describe the spatial and temporal dynamics of surface macroaggregates observed in digital images. We define aggregate persistence as the ability of aggregates to remain in a pre-determined spatial unit throughout a given time span. The first index explains how many aggregates with the same size distribution remain on a soil surface area through time, which we call the Grouped Aggregate Persistence Index (GAPI). The proportion of individual aggregates with the same size, shape and location at the beginning and end of a measurement period is the Individual Aggregate Persistence Index (IAPI). We calculate the GAPI and IAPI for macroaggregates on the surface of a clay agricultural soil, as an example. Photographs of the soil surface (55 cm 2 ) are analyzed with a customized MATLAB program that uses the watershed method to calculate the macroaggregate size distribution for the GAPI and identify the size, shape and location of macroaggregates for the IAPI. These persistence indices are a non-destructive way to describe dynamic changes in macroaggregates at the soil surface, which is complementary to other methods that visually evaluate the soil structure.
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 | 0.000 | 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