Fractionation of sediment phosphorus revisited. I: Fractionation steps and their biogeochemical basis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this work was to assess the validity of a phosphorus fractionation procedure, introduced by Psenner and co‐workers and modified by Jensen and Thamdrup, in chemical characterization of sediment P. In this procedure, P is separated into 6 pools: loosely bound (and pore water) P, redox‐sensitive P (bound to iron and manganese), P bound to oxides of aluminum and nonreducible Fe, calcium‐bound P, and mobile and immobile pools of organic P. The procedure was slightly modified further, and every step of the work is described in detail. Reproducibility of the method and variation within the extracts obtained at each step were investigated with a commercial reference material. The validity of the results considered against the theoretical basis of the P fractionation procedure was evaluated in terms of the elemental composition of the separate extracts. The results showed good reproducibility of the method; variation in amounts of the different P forms in the separate extractions was small (coefficient of variation <15%). In addition, the analysis of selected elements extracted along with P were reliable enough to deduce the origin of the various P forms. The analytical results for P and the other elements were in accordance with the general theoretical basis of the fractionation procedure. Despite some shortcomings, the tested procedure, in combination with the laboratory practices and analytical methods described, gives reliable and valuable results for distinguishing between potentially mobile and immobile P in sediment.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".