MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025533039 · doi:10.1080/00103624.2012.756002

Thirty-Year Manuring and Fertilization Effects on Heavy Metals in Black Soil and Soil Aggregates in Northeastern China

2013· article· en· W2025533039 on OpenAlexaff
Jianling Fan, Weixin Ding, Noura Ziadi

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHeavy metals in environment
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Jiangsu ProvinceChinese Academy of Sciences
KeywordsManureSoil waterEnvironmental chemistryFertilizerChemistrySiltTotal organic carbonZincSoil testAgronomyEnvironmental scienceSoil scienceGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To evaluate the effects of thirty years of manure and chemical fertilizer applications on metal accumulations in soil and soil aggregates, fresh soils were separated by wet sieving into four aggregate fractions and heavy-metal concentrations in soil and aggregates were determined. The soil organic carbon (SOC) concentration in microaggregates ranged from 20.2 to 39.6 g carbon (C) kg−1, which was significantly greater than those in the other fractions. The proportion of heavy metals in small macroaggregates and the silt + clay fraction accounted for 45.5 ± 10.6% and 35.8 ± 14.1% of the total amount in soil, respectively, which might be due primarily to their greater mass percentages in soil. Both chemical fertilizer and manure significantly stimulated iron (Fe) and zinc (Zn) accumulation; horse manure also increased copper (Cu), lead (Pb), and chromium (Cr) concentration in bulk soils as compared with the control. The results also indicated that heavy-metal distribution in aggregates was not controlled by SOC but possibly by soil clay.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations31
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunications in Soil Science and Plant AnalysisSame topicHeavy metals in environmentFrench-language works237,207