MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6889596483 · doi:10.25675/10217/200701

Applying subsurface drainage and windbreaks to control dryland salinity

2008· other· en· W6889596483 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Collections of Colorado (Colorado State University) · 2008
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAeolian processes and effects
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
KeywordsDrainageHydrology (agriculture)EvapotranspirationLeaching (pedology)Well drainageWindbreakInfiltration (HVAC)Watertable controlSoil salinity controlIrrigation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The reclamation of salinized soil involves lowering ground water levels, draining the vadose zone, and leaching the salts from the root zone. Plastic drain tubing placed 1.5 to 1.8 m below the land surface can lower watertables and drain phreatic water, but irrigation is usually required to leach the offending salts. The leaching process in non-irrigated drylands depends on natural precipitation. Rows of tall wheatgrass, Thinopyrum ponticum (Podp.) Lui & Wang, (1.2 m mean height) spaced on 15.2-m centers across saline fields can retain blowing snow, augment water for leaching salts, and moderate evapotranspiration when grown in conjunction with subsurface drainage. The mean salinity of saturated soil paste extracts from sets of soil samples taken every fall from such a site in southwestern Saskatchewan averaged 14.1 dS m-1 during 1985- 90 before the drainage was installed, 13.0 dS m-1 for 1991-92 after drainage but before the grass windbreaks became established, and 9.6 dS m-1 for 1993-98 with both drainage and windbreaks in place.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.166
Teacher spread0.160 · 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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDigital Collections of Colorado (Colorado State University)Same topicAeolian processes and effectsFrench-language works237,207