A history of soil classification and soil survey in Canada: Personal perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anderson, D. W. and Smith, C. A. S. 2011. A history of soil classification and soil survey in Canada: Personal perspectives. Can. J. Soil Sci. 91: 675–694. This paper presents an overview of soil classification and soil survey in Canada based on both historical documentation and the personal experiences and perspectives of the two authors. The first soil surveys in Canada beginning in Ontario in 1914 are described along with the earliest systems of soil classification. The roots of the current system of soil classification in Canada can be traced back to the establishment of the first meeting of the National Soil Survey Committee (later the Canada Soil Survey Committee) held in Ottawa in 1945. The Committee met every 2 to 3 years and a hard-cover “first” edition, “The Canadian System of Soil Classification” was published in 1978 and a slightly revised second edition in 1987. The third edition (1998) includes a more complete key and a tenth order, the Vertisolic Order. The four to five decades starting in the late 1940s were the glory years for soil survey in Canada, with well-funded and productive programs in all provinces and territories, with major outputs like the Canada Land Inventory. The period between mid 1990s and 2010 saw declining activity in new field survey and reductions in staff levels by government agencies, but a rise in private sector soil survey, largely for environmental assessment purposes. There is a renewed and on-going interest in and need for soil information. The challenge for pedologists is to provide reliable information in innovative and proactive ways.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".