The soil skeleton, a forgotten pool of carbon and nitrogen in soil
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary To evaluate the contribution of rock fragments to the soil’s total carbon content, the soil of 26 sites, ranging from the Canadian Arctic to the Jordan desert, was analysed for the content of organic C and total N in both fine earth and skeleton fractions. The soils, uncultivated and cultivated, are derived from 11 parent materials: sandstone, mica‐schist, granite, gneiss, basaltic pyroclastites, trachyte, dolomite, beach deposits, clay schist, marl and serpentinite. For each soil horizon the contents of fine earth and skeleton were determined by volume. Both fractions were analysed for bulk density, total and organic C and total N. Our results indicate that rock fragments contain amounts of C and N that depend on the nature of the parent material and on its resistance to the weathering processes. The C and N of both fine earth and skeleton were used to calculate the contents of these elements for three depths. At each depth, the skeleton contributes C and N to the soil depending on its abundance. We conclude that the contribution of the rock fragments to the soil C and N cannot be predicted from the soil taxa, but can from the parent material. Calculations that exclude C and N of the skeleton could lead to errors in the estimates of these two elements in soils.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it