MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404452012 · doi:10.1016/j.geodrs.2024.e00893

Soil organic carbon to clay ratio in different pedoclimatic and agronomic conditions in northeastern North America

2024· article· en· W4404452012 on OpenAlex
Inderjot Chahal, Joseph P. Amsili, Daniel D. Saurette, Jennifer A. Bower, Adam Gillespie, Harold M. van Es, Laura L. Van Eerd

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueGeoderma Regional · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Agriculture, Food and Rural AffairsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClay soilEnvironmental scienceTotal organic carbonClay mineralsSoil carbonSoil organic matterOrganic matterSoil waterCarbon fibersAgronomySoil scienceGeologyMineralogyChemistryMathematicsEnvironmental chemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Soil organic carbon levels are strongly influenced by pedoclimatic and agronomic environments; hence, establishing universal threshold values for SOC to differentiate soils into healthy and degraded classes is nearly impossible. Previously, SOC:clay ratio thresholds were used to classify soils into categories of “degraded”, “moderate”, “good”, and “very good”. Here, by comparing the percentage of soils under these categories, we assessed the applicability of the SOC:clay ratio as an indicator of soil carbon status on 2249 soil samples collected from Ontario (Canada) and New York (USA). Our results confirmed that the classification of soil based on SOC:clay ratio was highly clay biased, inaccurate, and not a true representation of soil degradation status. Fine-textured soils had a high percentage of degraded soils (73 %) whereas coarse textured soils had a large percentage (62 %) of soils with “very good” soil carbon status. Therefore, we do not recommend using SOC:clay ratio as a metric to assess soil carbon or degradation status. Alternatively, as originally proposed by Poeplau and Don (2023) , we tested a ratio between actual and expected SOC levels (SOC:SOCexp) as an indicator of soil degradation. Linear regression between SOC and clay content for the pasture systems was used to calculate SOCexp. Our results confirmed that classification of soil based on the SOC:SOCexp ratio was less biased, independent of clay content, and had a positive relationship soil health indicators (aggregate stability, permanganate oxidizable carbon (POXC), pH). Furthermore, we found that SOC:SOCexp better differentiated between soil degradation classes for all the tested soil physical, chemical, and biological properties than SOC:clay. While SOC:SOCexp was found to be a better predictor of soil carbon status than SOC:clay, the SOC:SOCexp thresholds were based on our dataset (a small sample size relative to population) and would not be appropriate across pedo-climatic zones. Overall, we conclude that SOC:clay is not an effective indicator of soil carbon status and SOC:SOCexp might be more useful to assess soil condition and derive baseline soil carbon levels at a regional scale.

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 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 score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.953

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.201 · 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