MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1723743356 · doi:10.4141/cjss2013-064

Changes in amino acids content of humic acids sequentially extracted from peat and sod–Podzolic soil

2014· article· en· W1723743356 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Elena A. Vialykh, С. А. Иларионов, Hamada Abdelrahman, I. A. Vialykh

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Soil Science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and environmental studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryIsoleucineLeucineValineAmino acidMethioninePhenylalanineCysteic acidChromatographyBiochemistryCysteineCystineEnzyme

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vialykh, E. A., Ilarionov, S. A., Abdelrahman, H. M. and Vialykh, I. A. 2014. Changes in amino acids content of humic acids sequentially extracted from peat and sod–Podzolic soil. Can. J. Soil Sci. 94: 575–583. Amino acids (AA) and peptides are thought to be part of humic acids (HA), but debate whether they are an integral part of the HA is still going. Humic acids sequentially extracted from peat and sod-podzolic soil were analyzed for their AA content, elemental composition and by Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy. Extracted HA were hydrolyzed in 6 M HCl for 16 h for AA release, which was detected by a capillary electrophoresis system. Alanine, arginine, sum of aspartic acid and asparagine, sum of cysteic acid and cysteine, sum of glutamic acid and glutamine, glycine, histidine, leucine and isoleucine, lysine, methionine, phenylalanine, proline, serine, threonine, tyrosine, valine were identified. The total content of hydrolyzable AA in sod-Podzol HA increased by 6.2–8.2% with increasing the extraction cycles while an inverse tendency was observed for AA released from peat HA. Moreover, individual AA expressed as percentages of total AA were constant values with coefficients of variation lower than 20% for the studied HA.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.603
Threshold uncertainty score0.750

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.163 · 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 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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Soil ScienceSame topicMarine and environmental studiesFrench-language works237,207