Exposure to weathering reduces the water repellency of aggregated oil sand material from subsoils of the Athabasca region
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study assesses the water repellency (WR) of aggregated oil sand material (AOSM) from the Athabasca region, Canada, and evaluates the onion-skin weathering hypothesis, which postulates that with increasing depth into the soil profile or into individual AOSM samples, the exposure to and extent of weathering of AOSM decreases and petroleum hydrocarbon (PHC) content and WR increase. WR and PHC content were determined for outer and inner portions of AOSM from depths of 15–200 cm. Results show AOSM displays a wide range of WR, in terms of both contact angle (0°–129°) and water drop penetration time (0 to >3600 s). As salvage depth or depth into AOSM increases, PHC content and WR increase, confirming onion-skin weathering. These findings imply the benefit of discreet salvaging into separate layers, as opposed to composite salvaging of shallow and deep soils. Deep materials, which contain relatively high PHC contents, can be salvaged and replaced as deep layers to avoid the excessive drying and expression of WR which may occur in the near-surface. By controlling the location of AOSM within the soil profile, water storage in the rooting zone may be increased, allowing the establishment of relatively productive ecosystems.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".