MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6947763645 · doi:10.4231/7sh9-ad91

Data for growing season nitrous oxide emissions from a Gray Luvisol as a function of long-term fertilization history and crop rotation

2019· dataset· en· W6947763645 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenuePurdue University Research Repository · 2019
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicDiatoms and Algae Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrowing seasonHuman fertilizationNitrous oxideCrop rotationRotation systemFertilizerManurePeatField experiment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A field study conducted over five growing seasons (2013-2017) assessed the effect of long-term fertilization history and crop rotation on growing season nitrous oxide (N2O) and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, wheat yield, wheat N uptake, N2O emission intensity and soil properties on Gray Luvisolic soils. Long-term fertility treatments included check, manure, NPKS, NPK and PKS fertilizers in two contrasting crop rotations: a 2-year of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)-fallow (WF), and a 5-year wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)-oat (Avena sativa)-barely (Hordeum vulgare L.) - alfalfa (Medicago sativa)/brome (Bromus tectorum) hay (WOBHH). Rotation significantly affected cumulative growing season N2O emissions and, within each rotation, long-term fertilizer or manure N additions increased N2O emissions over the check. Average, cumulative growing season N2O emissions from the 5-year rotation were 1.29 kg N2O-N ha-1, significantly higher than the 0.58 kg N2O-N ha-1 in the WF rotation, but N2O emission intensities were comparable between to the two rotations. Cumulative N2O emissions were positively correlated to total soil N (0-15 cm) and wheat N uptake, but N2O emission intensities were negatively correlated to total soil N.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePurdue University Research RepositorySame topicDiatoms and Algae ResearchFrench-language works237,207