MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2093482685 · doi:10.1080/17480931003658381

Cattle can tolerate high-molybdenum forage grown on reclaimed mine tailings: a review

2010· review· en· W2093482685 on OpenAlexafffundabout
D. Steinke, W. Majak

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Mining Reclamation and Environment · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMine drainage and remediation techniques
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsTailingsForageMolybdenumEnvironmental scienceLand reclamationMining engineeringAgronomyGeologyMetallurgyGeographyBiologyMaterials scienceArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Revegetation and cattle production are major objectives in the reclamation plan for mine tailings at the Highland Valley Copper mine in Canada. Residual molybdenum (Mo) in the tailings is imbibed by vegetation and forages accumulate up to 400 ppm Mo at the Highmont tailings pond. Grazing studies with cattle determined the feasibility of utilising the site for livestock production and published results are reviewed. Clinical evaluations (1999–2001) revealed signs of lameness, diarrhoea and hair coat depigmentation in cows but they recovered without treatment. Supplement trials (2002 – 2004) demonstrated the efficacy of copper (Cu) sulphate for the alleviation of clinical disorders. Dietary Mo was rapidly eliminated from the gastrointestinal tract and from muscle and fat tissues. Forages at the site imbibed molybdate but endogenous chelation reduced the toxic effect of the ion. Cu sulphate supplementation alleviated clinical signs, which permitted forage utilisation and sustainable cattle production at Highmont.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations4
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Mining Reclamation and EnvironmentSame topicMine drainage and remediation techniquesFrench-language works237,207