MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Using soil classification to improve interpretation of biological soil health indicators

2024· article· en· W4403926432 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Kate A. Congreves, Qianyi Wu

Bibliographic record

VenueGeoderma · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHeavy metals in environment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersSaskatchewan Wheat Development CommissionSaskatchewan Canola Development Commission
KeywordsSoil healthInterpretation (philosophy)Environmental scienceSoil scienceSoil classificationSoil waterComputer scienceSoil organic matter

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

• Biological indicators of soil health should be better represented in soil health tests. • Soil great group classification served as a useful contextualizing factor for soil health scoring. • Some biological indicators of soil health improved by regenerative practices. • Healthiest soil associated with native prairie grassland. • Soil element to carbon ratios might be useful indicator or organic matter quality. The concept of soil health recognizes soil as a living and dynamic natural system, a notion that aptly fits in the realm of biology. However, soil health tests and scoring tools are often dominated by indicators other than soil biology, such as soil fertility and chemistry. Biological indicators of soil health remain understudied and underrepresented in soil health assessments. To address this gap, here we evaluate soil attributes that reflect biological functions and vitality (including organic and total C, total N, mineralized C, extracellular enzyme activity, and phospholipid fatty acid (PLFA) analysis for microbial biomass and adaptation response ratio (ARR)). We assess if these biological indicators can be contextualized by soil classification and measure their responsiveness to agricultural management practices in Prairie region of Saskatchewan Canada. Despite the dynamic nature of biological indicators of soil health, we find that soil classification by great group constrains measurements and serves as a useful contextualizing factor to adjust scoring functions. Further, we find biological indicators of soil health (namely soil organic C, total N, and P and S enzyme activity) generally improve with more regenerative crop production practices such as cover cropping or organic management. Although other indicators such as CO 2 mineralization, N and C cycling enzymes, PLFA and ARR showed fewer differences among crop production practices, all were greater under prairie grassland than cropland. In contextualizing soil health scores by soil classification and including biological indicators of soil health that embody soil pools, processes, and life, soil health assessments will not only better represent soil biology and appropriately contextualize soil health scores, but also move towards better targeting soil functioning and vitality.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 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

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeodermaSame topicHeavy metals in environmentFrench-language works237,207