Inferential Approach for Evaluating the Association Between Land Cover and Soil Carbon in Northern Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resolving the status of soil carbon with land cover is critical for addressing the impacts of climate change arising from land cover conversion in boreal regions. However, many conventional inferential approaches inadequately gauge statistical significance for this issue, due to limited sample sizes or skewness of soil properties. This study aimed to address this drawback by adopting inferential approaches suitable for smaller samples sizes, where normal distributions of soil properties were not assumed. A two-step inference process was proposed. The Kruskal–Wallis (KW) test was first employed to evaluate disparities amongst soil properties. Generalized estimating equations (GEEs) were then wielded for a more thorough analysis. The proposed method was applied to soil samples (n = 431) extracted within the southern transition zone of the boreal forest (49°–50° N, 80°40′–84° W) in northern Ontario, Canada. Sites representative of eight land cover types and seven dominant tree species were sampled, investigating the total carbon (C), carbon-to-nitrogen ratio (C:N), clay percentage, and bulk density (BD). The KW test analysis corroborated significance (p-values < 0.05) for median differences between soil properties across the cover types. GEEs supported refined robust statistical evidence of mean differences in soil C between specific tree species groupings and land covers, particularly for black spruce (Picea mariana) and wetlands. In addition to the proposed method, the results of this study provided application for the selection of appropriate predictors for C with digital soil mapping.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".