Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dagesse, D. F. 2013. Freezing cycle effects on water stability of soil aggregates. Can. J. Soil Sci. 93: 473–483. The freezing process is commonly implicated as a key factor in defining the state of soil structural stability following the winter months. Controversy exists, however, regarding the efficacy, and even the net effect, of this process. The objective of the study was to establish the separate effects of the freezing, freeze–thaw and freeze-drying processes in defining soil structural stability following the over-winter period. Aggregates from soils of varying clay content (0.11, 0.33, 0.44 kg kg −1 ) and initial water content (0.10, 0.20 or 0.30 kg kg −1 ) were subjected to freeze-only (F), freeze–thaw (FT) and freeze-dry (FD) treatments. Post-treatment aggregate stability determination was via wet aggregate stability (WAS) and dispersible clay (DC). Freezing alone and freeze-dry treatments generally resulted in greater aggregate stability, while the freeze–thaw generally resulted in lower aggregate stability as compared with a control, not frozen treatment (T). These data suggest the freezing-induced desiccation process improves aggregate stability, while the addition of a thaw component following freezing, with the attendant liquid water, is responsible for degradation of aggregate stability. Clay content and initial water content are important factors governing the magnitude of this process.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".