A history of lignite coal mining and reclamation practices in Lusatia, eastern Germany
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".