Bibliographic record
Abstract
For centuries, scientists have been probing the nature and dynamics of organic matter in soil and sediment. A prominent approach in this research has been to extract using a strong alkaline solution. The continuing merits of this time-honored approach, however, has prompted some recent debate. Does the study of humic substances, as defined by alkaline extraction, still promise further advances in our understanding of organic matter dynamics in terrestrial and aquatic systems? The two articles in this special section offer divergent responses to this question, providing a framework for enlightening discourse that will help direct future research. Receptive reading of these views will not only lead to clarity on a crucial issue but also offer insight into how best to learn from potentially divisive questions that will inevitably arise in the study of soil, a still mysterious medium.
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 | 0.034 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.033 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.022 | 0.036 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
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".