MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Impacts of Airborne Pollutants on Soil Fauna

2000· article· en· W2133129084 on OpenAlexaff
Josef Rusek, Valin G. Marshall

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Ecology and Systematics · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicStudy of Mite Species
Canadian institutionsRoyal Roads University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPollutantMicrofaunaSoil biologyEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental chemistryOrganic matterMicroclimateSoil organic matterEcologySoil waterFaunaSoil scienceChemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

▪ Abstract The impacts of airborne pollutants have been studied in only a few groups of soil animals, notably protozoans, nematodes, potworms, earthworms, mites, and collembolans. Pollutants in the form of acid depositions, which contain SO42−, NOx, H+, heavy metals, and some organic compounds, are not homogeneously distributed on the landscape. Deposition patterns depend mainly on landscape configuration and plant cover. Airborne pollutants affect soil animals both directly and indirectly. Direct toxic effects are associated with uptake of free acidic water from the environment by some soil animals and with consumption of polluted food by others. Indirect effects are mediated primarily through disappearance or reduction of the food resources (microflora and microfauna) of soil animals, changes in organic matter content, and modification of microclimate. In the field, changes in competition among species are probably important factors that influence the soil animal community structure as well as the reactions of individual species to soil acidification or liming. The overall effect is a depauperation of soil with an attendant reduction in the rate of organic matter decomposition. We have provided five hypotheses, using soil fauna as indicators, to allow for quick evaluation of environmental changes caused by airborne pollutants.

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)0.000
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations98
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnual Review of Ecology and SystematicsSame topicStudy of Mite SpeciesFrench-language works237,207