MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4213036816 · doi:10.1002/crso.20175

Soil‐Sampling Strategies for Different Tillage and Fertilizer Placement Systems in Canada

2022· article· en· W4213036816 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Joy Drohan

Bibliographic record

VenueCrops & Soils · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTillageSampling (signal processing)Environmental scienceFertilizerAgricultural engineeringSoil managementComputer scienceSoil waterSoil scienceAgronomyEngineeringBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Designing a soil‐sampling program to use with different types of tillage and fertilizer placement systems can be challenging. Without careful planning to gather representative samples of the entire soil volume, growers may get skewed results. We spoke with five soil scientists and agronomists across Canada and the Northern Great Plains to get their take on this important issue. Earn 0.5 CEUs in Soil & Water Management by reading the article and taking the quiz at https://bit.ly/3nIwZdQ . View all CEUs online at https://web.sciencesocieties.org/Learning‐Center/Courses .

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.327
Threshold uncertainty score0.422

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCrops & SoilsSame topicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsFrench-language works237,207