MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W16335987 · doi:10.2134/agronmonogr41.c33

Reclamation of Smelter‐Damaged Lands

2000· book-chapter· en· W16335987 on OpenAlexaffabout
Keith Winterhalder

Bibliographic record

VenueAgronomy monograph/Agronomy · 2000
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCoal and Its By-products
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLand reclamationTailingsEnvironmental scienceSmeltingArable landNatural (archaeology)EcosystemEnvironmental protectionGeographyEnvironmental engineeringAgricultureEcologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter deals with the impact of gaseous and particulate emissions from smelter smokestacks on natural landscapes, and excludes consideration of dumps of solid smelter waste. Approaches to the reclamation of industrially disturbed landscapes vary, from benign neglect at one end of the spectrum to complete ecosystem restoration at the other. The approach taken by the Sudbury, Regional Land Reclamation Program can be thought of as minimal amelioration, since the limestone application rarely raises the soil pH by more than one unit, and neither limestone nor fertilizer treatment is repeated after the first application. The use of covering materials is fairly common in the reclamation of solid wastes such as tailings, but it also is used occasionally on degraded landscapes where they are severely metal-contaminated. The benefits of revegetating a degraded landscape are many, including aesthetic enhancement, the return to a functioning ecosystem, the provision of wildlife habitat, and the provision of recreational amenities.

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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

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)0.0090.002

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.168 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations12
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAgronomy monograph/AgronomySame topicCoal and Its By-productsFrench-language works237,207