MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415653033 · doi:10.1002/sae2.70108

Use of a Process‐Based Model to Predict Nitrous Oxide Emissions From Intensive Crop Production Under a Changing Climate

2025· article· en· W4415653033 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Kosoluchukwu C. Ekwunife, Chandra A. Madramootoo, Qianjing Jiang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sustainable Agriculture and Environment · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversitySte. Anne's Hospital
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
KeywordsNitrous oxideGreenhouse gasTemperate climateDenitrificationClimate changeAgricultureGrowing seasonAtmosphere (unit)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT In cold temperate regions, nongrowing season (November‐April) nitrous oxide (N 2 O) emissions from croplands can be substantial, particularly during the rapid freeze‐thaw cycles of the late winter‐spring. Despite their potential environmental impact, the extent and underlying climatic triggers of these emissions remain poorly understood. Using the Denitrification and Decomposition (DNDC) model, N 2 O fluxes and climatic triggers of N 2 O emissions were assessed by simulating historical (1990–2019) and 30‐year future (2038–2067) winter and early spring emissions under intensive grain corn production in Southern Quebec. In the historical period, mean winter N 2 O emissions were greatest in warm‐wet years, and increased over the years as the snow‐water equivalent (SWE) declined. Future scenario simulations predict a 10% increase in winter/spring N 2 O emissions, driven by a 1°C rise in winter soil temperature and an 8% increase in water‐filled pore space (WFPS). SWE is also expected to decrease by 1 mm annually. These shifts suggest a substantial increase in future winter N₂O emissions, highlighting the urgency of developing mitigation strategies for agricultural soils.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.527
Threshold uncertainty score0.212

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sustainable Agriculture and EnvironmentSame topicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsFrench-language works237,207