Effect of organic carbon (peat) on moisture retention of peat:mineral mixes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quantification of the effects of organic carbon (OC) addition to reclaimed soils is an important reclamation issue. Such effects on soil texture, field capacity (FC), wilting point (PWP) and water-holding capacity (WHC), all expressed both on a gravimetric and volumetric basis, were quantified using both in situ soil samples and laboratory-prepared peat:mineral mixes. Soil samples were collected from both natural and reclaimed areas within the Oil Sands region of Alberta; peat was obtained from the same area. Organic carbon was determined for laboratory-created mixtures and expressed as volume ratios; for the in situ samples it was expressed as % OC. Bulk density, an important factor in the effects of OC on water retention, was measured in situ.Water retention parameters of in situ samples on a gravimetric basis were significantly related to % OC, but those on a volume basis were not. Trends in volumetric WHC for in situ, coarse-textured samples were similar to those for gravimeteric WHC, due to similar bulk densities ranging from 1.30 to 1.40 Mg m–3. However, for in situ peaty soils, trends in volumetric water retention did not mimic those expressed on a gravimetric basis due to low and irregular bulk densities. For laboratory-constructed peat:mineral mixes, FC and WHC were significantly impacted by % OC, however, PWP was not. The addition of peat material resulted in minor textural changes for sand and loamy sand; hence, the change in texture could not be responsible for the increases in WHC as the result of peat additions. The results for sandy loam were variable. Key words: Bulk density, field capacity, reclamation, water-holding capacity
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".