Anthroposol development from limestone quarry substrates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cohen-Fernández, A. C., Naeth, M. A. and Wilkinson, S. R. 2013. Anthroposol development from limestone quarry substrates. Can. J. Soil Sci. 93: 555–566. Limestone quarry reclamation worldwide requires development of substrates or anthroposolic soils. The suitability of three limestone substrates (gray, gray brown, crushed) for revegetation was assessed in two greenhouse experiments. In the first experiment amended substrates (pulp mill sludge, two manures, hay, straw, wood shavings, capping with two soils) alone and in combination with fertilizer and elemental sulfur were evaluated. Amendment rates were assessed in a second experiment. Plant density and above- and below-ground biomass were used to determine substrate suitability. The three limestone substrates supported germination, emergence and establishment of five native grasses when amended. Addition of fertilizer yielded three times more above-ground biomass and two times more below-ground biomass compared with the control, despite reducing plant density. Sulfur application did not significantly affect plant variables. Capped topsoil, clean fill and incorporated pulp mill sludge yielded the highest above-and below-ground biomass and plant density. To a lesser extent manure compost favorably changed plant parameters, but hay and straw did not. High fertilizer and amendment rates yielded better results than medium and low rates; pulp mill sludge was the exception with no significant difference in plant performance between low and high rates. Suitable anthroposols for limestone quarry reclamation were achieved.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".