Humic Fractions and the Nature of Organic Materials in Intimate Association with Soil Clays
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract For any consideration of the organic matter in intimate association with the surface of soil clays it is appropriate to consider first the totality of the organic matter in the soil. The term “soil organic matter” (SOM), according to Stevenson (1994), refers to “the whole of the organic matter in soils, including the litter, the light fraction, the microbial biomass, the water-soluble organics, and the stabilized organic matter (humus)”. Nowadays, the term natural organic matter (NOM) is widely used for the natural organic components in soils, sediments, and waters. On the basis of earlier definitions by Kononova (1966), Hayes and Swift (1978)considered the complete soil organic fraction to be made up of live organisms and plants within the soil, and their undecomposed, partly decomposed, and completely transformed remains. However, they regarded SOM to be a more specific term for the non-living components that may be described as “a heterogeneous mixture composed largely of products resulting from microbial and chemical transformation of organic debris.” The transformation, or the humificationprocess, gives rise to the final product, humus, a mixture of substances with some resistance to further degradation. This definition is similar to that of Stevenson who considered humus to be the total of organic compounds in soil exclusive of undecayed plant and animal tissues, their partial ‘decomposition’ products, and the soil biomass. Stevenson partitioned SOM into the “active” (or labile) and the “stable” pools. The “active fraction” contains the macro-organic (or particulate) matter and the
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".