MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Establishment of a Vegetation Cover on Tundra Kimberlite Mine Tailings: 2. A Field Study

2005· article· en· W1973397294 on OpenAlexaffabout
Neil Reid, M. Anne Naeth

Bibliographic record

VenueRestoration Ecology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPeatlands and Wetlands Ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaVanguard College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTailingsTundraEnvironmental scienceVegetation (pathology)PeatSubarctic climateSphagnumEcosystemEcologyBiologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract High erosion potential of dewatered kimberlite mine tailings after diamond extraction has prompted research at the Ekati Diamond Mine in the Canadian subarctic heath tundra ecosystem. Greenhouse and field studies aimed at establishing a permanent vegetation cover on these dewatered tailings began in spring 2000. Coarse texture, no organic component, lack of available macronutrients, and a serpentine chemistry are the principal limitations of kimberlite tailings to plant colonization. Structure‐improving (peat moss, lake sediment, and sewage sludge) and nutrient‐providing (fertilizer, rock phosphate, calcium carbonate, and gypsum) amendments were tested to ameliorate these conditions, facilitating the establishment of a permanent vegetation cover, which stabilizes surface materials and promotes natural colonization by the surrounding tundra vegetation. Seven native grass species ( Arctagrostis latifolia , Calamagrostis canadensis , Poa glauca , Poa alpina , Deschampsia beringensis , Deschampsia caespitosa , and Festuca rubra ) were used to measure amendment success. With the addition of structure‐improving and nutrient‐providing amendments, plant growth on these kimberlite tailings under field conditions was significantly improved over unamended tailings material. Tailings properties, including cation exchange capacity, organic carbon, and macronutrient availability, were also improved with amendment addition.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.239 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations41
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRestoration EcologySame topicPeatlands and Wetlands EcologyFrench-language works237,207