Overview of the Canadian component of the North American Soil Geochemical Landscapes Project with recommendations for acquiring soil geochemical data for environmental and human health risk assessments
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The involvement of the Geological Survey of Canada in the North American Soil Geochemical Landscapes Project from 2004 to 2009 led to the development of protocols to support environmental and human health risk assessments. Recommendations for acquiring soil samples, analysing them and the resulting geochemical data to support risk assessments, as well as outlines of a procedure for estimating geochemical background are presented. The following practices are proposed: (1) collection of soil samples from pedological horizons (C-horizon in particular) rather than depth-based intervals; (2) use of a spatially random sample design; (3) analysis of the unmilled <2-mm fraction; (4) dissolution using the US EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency) (US EPA) Method 3050B aqua regia variant; (5) archiving of sample splits; and (6) evaluation of chemical data through the insertion, analysis and monitoring of QA/QC samples. Part of the Canadian project was also the in-situ measurement of soil gas radon and the radiometric estimates of soil K, U and Th concentrations, the protocols for which are discussed.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it