MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1746917980 · doi:10.4141/cjss2010-063

A history of lignite coal mining and reclamation practices in Lusatia, eastern Germany

2012· article· en· W1746917980 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Julia Krümmelbein, Oliver Bens, Thomas Raab, M. Anne Naeth

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Soil Science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPeatlands and Wetlands Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLand reclamationCoal miningCoalMining engineeringAgricultureEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental protectionGeographyArchaeologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Krümmelbein, J., Bens, O., Raab, T. and Naeth, M. A. 2012. A history of lignite coal mining and reclamation practices in Lusatia, eastern Germany. Can. J. Soil Sci. 92: 53–66. Germany is the world's leading lignite coal producer. The region surrounding the towns of Cottbus and Senftenberg in Lusatia, Eastern Germany, is one of the largest mining areas in Germany, and has economically been strongly dependent on lignite mining and lignite processing industries since the middle of the 19th century. We introduce the area, give a brief historical overview of lignite mining techniques and concentrate on post-mining recultivation (reclamation) to agricultural and forestry dominated landscapes. An overview of the physical and chemical limitations for reclamation of the Tertiary and Quaternary substrates due to their natural composition and the technical processes of mine site construction is provided. We introduce some recultivation practices and end with a display of land uses before and after mining and an outlook on the future use of the reclaimed landscape. This review serves as a defined perspective on long-term coal mine reclamation from which to address global similarities and contrasts.

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 score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations67
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Soil ScienceSame topicPeatlands and Wetlands EcologyFrench-language works237,207