MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2584174078 · doi:10.1139/cjss-2016-0145

Amendments and substrates to develop anthroposols for northern mine reclamation

2017· article· en· W2584174078 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Valerie Miller, M. Anne Naeth

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Soil Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicClay minerals and soil interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLand reclamationPeatEnvironmental scienceFertilizerAgronomyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mining and natural resource development in the Canadian north has produced large areas of disturbance and volumes of waste, necessitating reclamation. This study focused on building anthroposols in a greenhouse using waste material from Diavik Diamond Mine. There were six substrates (crushed rock, lakebed sediment, processed kimberlite, and its combinations), seven organic amendments (sewage, soil, peat, Black Earth, biochar, and its combinations), a control, and two nutrient treatments (with and without fertilizer). Substrates and amendments were mixed and seeded with three grass species. Soil properties and vegetation responses were assessed. Substrate structure was a challenge; crushed rock and processed kimberlite had little fine material and lakebed sediment was compacted. Processed kimberlite and sewage had metal concentrations (barium, chromium, cobalt, copper, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, and zinc) above guidelines. Vegetation established on all anthroposols, with plant growth and density greatest in crushed rock, followed by 25% processed kimberlite with 75% lakebed sediment and 100% lakebed sediment. Substrates amended with peat and (or) soil had the greatest plant density and belowground biomass; substrates amended with sewage and sewage–soil had greatest aboveground biomass. Fertilizer had a limited effect. With appropriate amendments, waste materials at the mine showed potential as reclamation soils.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.400
Threshold uncertainty score0.985

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations18
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Soil ScienceSame topicClay minerals and soil interactionsFrench-language works237,207