MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2082243283 · doi:10.2136/sssaj2004.8200

Evaluation of Soil Surface Charge Using the Back‐Titration Technique

2004· article· en· W2082243283 on OpenAlexaff
Ying Ge, William H. Hendershot

Bibliographic record

VenueSoil Science Society of America Journal · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicIron oxide chemistry and applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSurface chargeTitrationAdsorptionChemistryCation-exchange capacitySoil waterCharge densityDissolutionPhase (matter)Analytical Chemistry (journal)Ion exchangeIonSoil scienceInorganic chemistryChromatographyGeologyPhysical chemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Variable surface charge ( Q v ) is one of the most important soil properties controlling ion adsorption on the soil solid phase. In this study, the back‐titration technique was used to determine the Q v of soils with a wide range of properties. The procedure defines the Q v as the OH − consumption by surface reactions corrected for dissolution of the solid phase and other solution reactions (e.g., metal hydrolysis). The Q v , varying from 0 to 80 cmol c kg −1 , was dependent on the pH of the soil suspension and the amount of soil organic matter. We used the non‐ideal competitive adsorption (NICA)–Donnan model to simulate the surface charge, assuming a bimodal distribution of H + affinity on the soil solid phase. With the charge data and Microsoft Excel, the NICA‐Donnan model parameters were optimized. The model provided an excellent fit to the experimental data. When the pH was below 8, the surface charge was dominantly distributed to the Type 1 sites; the Type 2 sites started to contribute to the total surface charge at pH > 8. Multiple linear regressions showed that the charge maxima ( Q max ) of the two sites were related to soil cation‐exchange capacity (CEC) and organic C (Org. C); these significant statistical relationships may be used to estimate the surface charge of soils using values of commonly measured soil parameters.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.127
Threshold uncertainty score0.438

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.277 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations22
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSoil Science Society of America JournalSame topicIron oxide chemistry and applicationsFrench-language works237,207