MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124474332 · doi:10.5539/jas.v7n12p15

Metals Leak from Tilled Soil in a Century – A Review

2015· review· en· W2124474332 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gunnar Bengtsson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicGroundwater and Watershed Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTopsoilEnvironmental scienceGroundwaterSoil waterEnvironmental chemistryEnvironmental engineeringSoil scienceHydrology (agriculture)ChemistryGeologyGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>Toxic metals are mobilized on a large scale in modern society. Many of those metals end up in sewage sludge. The objective of this review was to elucidate the threat to groundwater due to a few metals lost from tilled sludge amended soils. It is sometimes suggested that these metals are immobilized in the topsoil and do not move downward. In contrast, dozens of long term field studies around the world indicate that penetration depths for metals increase with time since deposition.</p><p>Such studies were examined in depth in the current analysis. An equation was developed for calculation of long term mean metal penetration rates into the topsoil for copper and silver. The equation is valid for about a century but not much longer. The mean depths of a basic set of 11 cases from studies over 4 years to 100 years were predicted with a standard deviation of 11%. A typical penetration rate was 3 mm per year. There was no significant difference in penetration rate between several cations. Extremely large amendments were associated with larger penetration rates.</p><p>When metals have traversed the topsoil, the groundwater will be contaminated. The European Groundwater Pollution Directive stipulates that pesticide levels should be kept below 0.1 µg/l. When sludge is applied to agricultural soil, this level may by far be exceeded for many metals, even if strict limitations are applied to the metal contents of the sludge. This calls for careful assessment of the groundwater consequences of sludge amendment.</p><p>Extensive supplementary material provides many detailed tables, texts and references.</p>

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)0.002
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score0.689

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicGroundwater and Watershed AnalysisFrench-language works237,207