Nanoparticles and nanostructure morphology of a Red Latosol in rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT In the process of rehabilitation of a soil, two points are fundamental: to define optimal interferences to accelerate the rehabilitation process and the most appropriate indicators to diagnose its quality. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the nanoparticle and nanostructure morphology of a Red Latosol in rehabilitation for eight years. The soil under rehabilitation process was compared with its natural state and degraded. In the topsoil, nanoparticles (ø < 100 nm) and fine clay (ø < 200 nm) were quantified and the nanostructures morphology was studied using images obtained by transmission electron microscopy. Soil porosity, bulk density and carbon, nitrogen and hydrogen contents were analyzed. It was found that the nanoparticles and nanostructure morphology were good soil quality indicators; the physical and chemical attributes were not sensitive to detect alterations between the conditions of degraded soil and soil rehabilitated for eight years; in the class of particles with diameter smaller than 200 nm, for the studied Red Latosol, the visualization of nanostructures is more effective.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".