Characterization and Classification of Soils of the Terra da Esperança Settlement Project in Chapada do Apodi, Brazil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Soil characterization and pedological classification are essential to define its main potentials and restrictions. The objective of this work was to classify the morphological, physical, chemical, and pedological attributes of soils of the Terra da Esperança Settlement Project (TESP) in Chapada do Apodi, Brazil, and find the most sensitive attributes for distinguishing them using multivariate analysis. The research was carried out in the TESP, in the municipality of Governor Dix-Sept Rosado, state of Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil. Ten sites were chosen to open representative soil profiles: Native Forest Area 1 (NFA1), 2 (NFA2), and 3 (NFA3), Collective Area with Native Forest (CNF), Agroecological Area (AEA), Cashew crop Area (CCA) Collective Area with Pasture 1 (CAP1), and 2 (CAP2), Permanent Preservation Area (PPA), and Cajaraneira (Spondia sp.) Orchard Area (COA). Disturbed and undisturbed soil samples were collected and subjected to physical and chemical analysis for soil classification. The soils classes found were: Cambissolo Haplico Carbonatico vertissolico (NFA1), Cambissolo Haplico Carbonatico tipico (CNF, and AEA), Cambissolo Haplico Ta Eutrofico tipico (CAP2, NFA2, and COA), Cambissolo Haplico Ta Eutrofico vertissolico (NFA3), Argissolo Vermelho Distrofico latossolico (CCA), Chernossolo Rendzico Ortico saprolitico (CAP1), and Neossolo Fluvico Ta Eutrofico tipico (PPA). The material of origin of the soils contributed to the presence of a calcic horizon in the profiles NFA1, CNF, AEA, CCA (Cambissolos), and CAP1 (Chernossolos). The textural class of the soils varied from sand to clay. The Argissolo (CCA) presented acid character, high aluminum saturation, low base saturation, dystrophic character, and low cation exchange capacity, forming horizons with chemical limitations, due to its latossolico character. The most sensitive attributes for distinguishing the soil classes were related to the source material, which directly influenced the soil physical (silt and clay) and chemical (acidity, salinity, nutrient availability, and clay activity) attributes.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".