MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409874957 · doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2025.104361

Harmonizing soil carbon simulation models, emission factors and direct measurements used in LCA of agricultural systems

2025· article· en· W4409874957 on OpenAlex

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueAgricultural Systems · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAgriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersHORIZON EUROPE Food, Bioeconomy, Natural Resources, Agriculture and EnvironmentHorizon 2020European Commission
KeywordsAgricultureEnvironmental scienceCarbon fibersSoil carbonSoil scienceAgricultural engineeringComputer scienceSoil waterEngineeringEcologyAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT The increasing demand for animal products, coupled with the need to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from livestock production , highlights the urgency for effective mitigation strategies for livestock systems, including the cropping systems. Soil organic carbon (SOC) sequestration, a crucial approach for reducing atmospheric GHG concentrations, is often underrepresented in Life Cycle Assessments (LCA) of agricultural systems, largely due to methodological challenges in accurately accounting for soil carbon dynamics. OBJECTIVE The objective of this study was to evaluate soil carbon simulation models, emission factors and direct measurements used in LCA, with the aim of developing a harmonized approach for including soil carbon change in agricultural LCAs. The goals were to: i) assess soil carbon simulation models, emissions factors and direct measurements used in LCAs of agricultural systems; ii) evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of these models; iii) provide recommendations for LCA practitioners; and iv) identify areas for future methodological improvements. METHODS A systematic review of soil carbon simulation models, emission factors and direct measurements used in LCAs of agricultural systems was conducted, obtaining 263 relevant articles from an initial pool of 29,151. In addition to direct measurements, fifteen soil carbon simulation models and three methods based on emission factors were identified and categorized into three tiers based on complexity and data requirements. A modified Delphi participatory process was used to evaluate each method against established criteria through expert workshops. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS The results showed an inverse relationship between applicability and accuracy of methods, making the choice of methodology critical to achieving high-quality LCA results. Recommendations emphasize selecting methods based on objectives and data availability, while being aware of the effect of the initial soil carbon level and the assessment time period when using soil carbon simulation models. In addition, this study identified current methodological challenges in assessing soil C dynamics in LCA of agricultural systems. SIGNIFICANCE This research provides a foundation for improving LCA practices and supports better decision-making in mitigating climate impacts of agricultural systems.

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 score0.435
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.193 · 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