MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W985683334 · doi:10.1201/9781482298031-16

Soil Carbon Sequestration in Mexico and Central America (Biome A)

2006· book-chapter· en· W985683334 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiomeCarbon sequestrationSoil carbonEnvironmental scienceEarth scienceCarbon fibersAgroforestryForestryGeographySoil scienceGeologySoil waterEcosystemComputer scienceEcologyCarbon dioxideBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current change in the global climate is attributed to the unprecedented concentration in the atmosphere of greenhouse gases (GHGs). The main GHGs are CO2, N2O, CH4, and CFCs. Agricultural activities, including land use and land-use change, constitute an important source of GHG, being responsible for 25 percent of CO2, 50 percent of CH4, and 70 percent of N2O emitted by all human activities (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 1998). At a global level, agricultural activities use approximately 35 percent of all the existing lands on the planet. If the accumulation of GHGs continues at the present rate, experts predict an increase in the average global temperature between 3 and 5°C by the end of the twenty-first century (IPCC, 1996, 2001). Because such increase may have serious consequences for humankind, mitigation measures must be adopted by all nations of the world. One of this mitigation measures is to increase carbon (C) stock in the major components of the ecosystems. Plants and soil are two major compo- nents of the ecosystems with a high C sequestration potential which merit both basic and adaptive research.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.123

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 communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.191
Teacher spread0.178 · 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

Citations6
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics→French-language works237,207→