MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7096392981

Prepared by:

2006· article· en· W7096392981 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicForest Biomass Utilization and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoil waterLoamSiltBulk densityPorosityPedotransfer functionWater contentLimitingWater potential
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2005-06, we continued efforts to improve our ability to predict the effects of machine traffic on soils and forest productivity. • Tree growth measurements at Okanagan Falls showed that early trends were not indicative of the eight year results, illustrating the need for long term measurements for evaluating soil productivity. • Investigations of thresholds for growth limiting factors in a silt loam soil were initiated through installation of an experiment in raised soil boxes at Kalamalka Forestry Centre. • Field investigations of the relationship between soil bulk density, mechanical resistance and water content continued in 2005-06 with measurements taken at the LTSP plots near Kamloops. These investigations have confirmed the ability of our methods to evaluate soil physical conditions in soils with approximately 25 percent coarse fragments, but have also revealed that measurements are much more difficult in soils with higher coarse fragment contents. • More detailed investigations have also confirmed the usefulness of an air pycnometer for evaluating air filled porosity and soil particle density. • Water retention prediction using two models has continued, and is showing promise for estimating the water retention curve from soil properties • Investigations have continued on the relationship between maximum bulk density and other soil properties such as particle size distribution, organic carbon, and Atterburg limits.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.965
Threshold uncertainty score0.347

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 head0.001
GPT teacher head0.141
Teacher spread0.140 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicForest Biomass Utilization and ManagementFrench-language works237,207