Research on Carbon Source Effect of Guangxi Typical Carbonate Rock Area by Acid Rain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to have an insight into the reaction between acid rain and carbonate rock surface, and figure out the CO2carbonate source amount from the acid rain chemical weathering process of the carbonate rocks, two typical carbonate rock areas Guilin (represents limestone area) and Liuzhou (represents dolomite area) were chosen as the study areas in Guangxi. According to the dissolution rate calculated by the limestone test piece and GIS analysis, the CO2source produced by the acid rain was 41.066×108g/a, in which Guilin was 33.349×108g/a and Liuzhou was 7.717×108g/a. The carbon sources of unit area in Guilin and in Liuzhou were 66.967×105g/a•km2 and 42.777×105g/a•km2 respectively. Although the carbon sources were still less than their carbon sinks in Guilin and Liuzhou which were 273.891×105g/a•km2 and 43.660×105g/a•km2 respectively, they should not be neglected. There were two reasons that the degassing rate of carbon source in Guilin was slower than that in Liuzhou. One was the representative area of carbonate rock in Guilin were 2.77 times of that in Liuzhou, the other one was that the total intensity of acid rain of Guilin was lower than Liuzhou, so that the dissolution rate of the carbonate rocks was lower in Guilin.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".