Soil water regimes of reclaimed upland slopes in the oil sands region of Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Leatherdale, J., Chanasyk, D. S. and Quideau, S. 2012. Soil water regimes of reclaimed upland slopes in the oil sands region of Alberta. Can. J. Soil Sci. 92: 117–129. Large oil sands deposits in the Athabasca oil sands region of Alberta, Canada, are recovered through surface mining, creating a large-scale disturbance. Reclamation requires reconstruction of soil profiles to return the land to equivalent land capability and support the required end land use. Soil water regimes must be understood to allow for planting of appropriate vegetation species. This study quantified soil water regimes on reclaimed upland slopes of various reclamation prescriptions and determined whether soil water was affected by slope position. Slope position did not have a consistent effect on soil water. Spatial variability in soil characteristics and vegetation distribution likely had a greater influence on soil water than did slope position. The upper slope soil profiles had highly dynamic water regimes and a greater response to precipitation events than the lower soil profiles. Differences in water-holding capacity among sites were attributed to differences in clay, sand and organic matter content. Overwinter soil water recharge varied dramatically by site. Capillary barriers resulting from the textural discontinuities created by the reclamation prescriptions enhanced soil water retention within the profiles in at least two sites, and hence are desirable in reclamation scenarios, especially where reclamation material is coarse textured.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".