MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064539720 · doi:10.4141/s99-051

Effects of parent material and climate on the magnetic susceptibility of Saskatchewan soils

2000· article· en· W2064539720 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
E. de Jong, L. M. Kozak, H. P. W. Rostad

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Soil Science · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGeomagnetism and Paleomagnetism Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTopsoilPedogenesisSoil waterMagnetic susceptibilitySoil textureAeolian processesFluvialHorizonSoil scienceGeologyTexture (cosmology)Environmental sciencePhysical geographyGeomorphologyGeographyChemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Magnetic susceptibility (χ) of soils is easily measured; however, the link between magnetic horizonation and pedogenic factors needs to be clarified. This study compares the χ of the A and C horizons of 89 generally well-drained profiles from the agricultural area of Saskatchewan to quantify the effects of parent material and climate. Total Fe and Mn were only weakly related to χ, but χ increased as the soil texture became coarser. This trend was more noticeable in parent material than topsoil samples, and stronger for till than for fluvial, lacustrine and aeolian parent materials. The A horizon samples showed enhanced low frequency and frequency dependant χ. This increase in topsoil χ was greatest in the more humid areas. Key words: Magnetic susceptibility, parent material, climate, texture, magnetic enhancement, soil zone

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)0.001
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 score0.713
Threshold uncertainty score0.571

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations36
Published2000
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Soil ScienceSame topicGeomagnetism and Paleomagnetism StudiesFrench-language works237,207