Genesis of soils developed from red-brown clays and loesslike loams in the southwest of the Central Russian plain (the Belogor’e reserve)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Soils developed from the red-brown Neogene clay and the Quaternary loesslike loams have been studied in the south of the forest-steppe zone on the Central Russian Upland. A polygenetic nature of the soil profile on the loesslike loams is shown. The modern pedogenetic processes in this soil ensure its eluvial-illuvial differentiation with the development of multilayered coatings in the illuvial horizon. The soil developed from the Neogene clay has a lower degree of differentiation despite the more acid reaction. The micromorphological study of the coatings and the mineralogical analysis of the clay fraction separated from the coatings and from the intraped mass disclose differences in the geneses of B horizons of the two soils. In the soil developed from the loesslike loam, hydromica predominates among clay minerals of the coatings; in the soil developed from the red-brown clay, smectitic minerals predominate in the clay fraction. Differences in the properties of these two parent materials predetermined differences in the major directions of soil formation: the metamorphic pedogenesis predominates on the red-brown clay, whereas the textural differentiation develops in the soil on the loesslike loam. The middle horizons in the studied soil profiles are referred to as the structural-metamorphic and textural (clay-illuvial) horizons, respectively.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".