Cadmium adsorption by an organic soil: a comparison of some humic – metal complexation models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The retention of Cd by an organic soil was investigated as a function of pH and ionic strength. The adsorption of Cd at pH values from 2 to 11 at two ionic strengths (0.053 M and 0.017 M LiNO3) were found to be a function of both pH and ionic strength. Four Cd-humic complexation models were evaluated in order to test the applicability of these models to fit data from batch adsorption experiments. The models varied greatly in their complexity and implicit assumptions. Three were discrete functional group models – a simple diprotic acid model, a two diprotic acid model and the Windermere Humic Aqueous Acid (WHAM) model, and a continuous functional group model - the non-ideal competitive adsorption (NICA) model. The concentration of proton binding sites in the soil was found to be 4.51 mol kg-1. The NICA and WHAM models were more successful than either a simple diprotic acid model or a two diprotic acid model at modeling Cd complexation by the organic soil, although both underestimated adsorption at very high pH values.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 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".