Soil quality and land capability of reclaimed oil and gas well pads in southern Alberta: long-term legacy effects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since 1963 approximately 100 000 oil and gas well pads have been officially certified as reclaimed in Alberta, yet follow-up monitoring programs have not been established to assure provincial environmental desired outcomes such as equivalent land capability are met at these certified well pads. The Ecological Recovery Monitoring Project was designed to determine long-term recovery of environmental quality at certified, reclaimed oil and gas well pads. Our study used soil data from 25 oil and gas well pads that were certified as reclaimed between 1964 and 2011. The objective of this study was to determine if well pad reclamation had long-term legacy effects on soil parameters and land capability as measured with the land suitability rating system (LSRS). We used multivariate covariance generalized linear models to determine effects of recovery time and reclamation on well pad soil parameters pH, bulk density (Db), total organic carbon (TOC), and electrical conductivity relative to reference soils. We also determined effects of reclamation on capability ratings using the LSRS. We concluded that soil quality and LSRS indices on well pads were lower than references due to adverse effects on pH, Db, and TOC. Long-term legacy effects on cultivated soils are significant and not well aligned with intended provincial outcomes. Further monitoring of reclaimed sites is strongly recommended.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".