MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2624547919

INVESTIGATION OF SOIL-WATER PROPERTIES FOR RECLAIMED OIL SANDS, FIRE-DISTURBED, AND UNDISTURBED FORESTED SOILS IN NORTHERN ALBERTA, CANADA

2017· dissertation· en· W2624547919 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
K. Novak

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity Library - University of Saskatchewan (University of Saskatchewan) · 2017
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRangeland and Wildlife Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanada's Oil Sands Innovation Alliance
KeywordsOil sandsSoil waterEnvironmental scienceGeologyForestryHydrology (agriculture)Mining engineeringGeotechnical engineeringSoil scienceGeographyArchaeologyAsphalt
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Oil Sands mining operations in Northern Alberta, Canada generate large areas that contain marginal soil conditions and must be overlaid with reclamation substrate. In order to expedite revegetation efforts, salvaged peat is often incorporated with mineral subsoil to compose a peat:mineral mix (PMM) to act as a soil cover. However, the soil water characteristics and physical properties of these covers are poorly understood for reclamation. Therefore, the objective of this study was to determine the soil physical properties and soil water characteristics of reclaimed covers compared to naturally disturbed sites (i.e. fire) and undisturbed reference sites. Soil samples were collected in the summer of 2012 and 2013 from three reclaimed PMM soil covers, one recently fire-disturbed natural site and one undisturbed reference site. Of all the nutrients analyzed, soil phosphorous (PO4-) concentrations were significantly lower in the reclaimed soils compared to the disturbed and undisturbed natural sites. Near-saturated hydraulic conductivity (Kns) for water transmission through the soil were measured, along with soil water retention curves developed for describing moisture storage. Topsoil (0-20 cm) Kns measurements revealed no statistical difference between reclaimed and natural sites and extremely high variation was detected at all sites. Three different models for estimating Kns also revealed only minor differences between methods, although high variation within each site prevented conclusions on whether the mini-disc infiltrometer and associated Kns models was an appropriate tool for measuring hydraulic conductivity in peat-dominated reclaimed soils. Soil water retention curves were developed by tension table and pressure plate methods on intact soil cores. Five soil hydraulic models – three unimodal and two bimodal - were fit to the retention curves and parameterized. Bimodal models showed a superior fit compared to the unimodal models at all three reclaimed and one undisturbed sites. Bimodal trends are typically associated with natural soils exhibiting a high degree of soil aggregation and associated heterogeneous pore structure. The fire-burnt site showed a unimodal trend possibly as the result of its sandy texture and lack of aggregation. These model fits suggest that a juvenile PMM have similar soil water storage characteristics to certain highly-structured natural soil as provided by its peat additions. Available water holding capacity was determined by both soil core and Land Capability Classification System methods. No differences were detected between techniques and a mesic soil moisture regime was predicted at all sites. This study found that juvenile PMM soil covers exhibited similar soil-water characteristics to a well-aggregated, undisturbed forested soil after only a few years post-placement. These results establish a comparative baseline for future soil research on reclaimed tailing ponds, as well as provide the necessary soil-water relationships for watershed and/or regional scale hydrological modelling.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.092

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.150
Teacher spread0.142 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueUniversity Library - University of Saskatchewan (University of Saskatchewan)Same topicRangeland and Wildlife ManagementFrench-language works237,207