Proposed classification for human modified soils in Canada: Anthroposolic order
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Naeth, M. A., Archibald, H. A., Nemirsky, C. L., Leskiw, L. A., Brierley, J. A., Bock, M. D., VandenBygaart, A. J. and Chanasyk, D. S. 2012. Proposed classification for human modified soils in Canada: Anthroposolic order. Can. J. Soil Sci. 92: 7–18. With increasing anthropogenic activity, the areal extent of disturbed soils is becoming larger and disturbances more intense. Regulatory frameworks must incorporate reclamation criteria for these disturbed soils, requiring consistent descriptions and interpretations. Many human altered soils cannot be classified using the Canadian System of Soil Classification (CSSC), thus an Anthroposolic Order is proposed. Anthroposols are azonal soils, highly modified or constructed by human activity, with one or more natural horizons removed, removed and replaced, added to, or significantly modified. Defining features are severe disruption of soil forming factors and introduction of potentially new pedogenic trajectories. Disturbed layers are anthropic in origin and contain materials significantly modified physically and/or chemically by human activities. Three great groups are defined by presence of anthropogenic artefacts and organic carbon content. Six subgroups are based on a cover soil layer with higher organic carbon content than the profile below it, on depth of disturbance, on drainage characteristics and water regime at the site. Some new phases and modifiers, in addition to traditional ones used in the CSSC, are based on chemical and physical properties and origins of anthropogenic artefacts. The proposed classification has been successfully applied to reclaimed profiles and is ready for widespread field testing.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".