International Environmental Legislation on the Content of Chemical Elements in Soils: Guidelines and Schemes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract— We analyzed the original and most developed environmental legislation of the Netherlands, Germany, the United States, and Canada, as well as the systems of Finland, the Czech Republic, China, the Republic of South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand, which have a number of specific features in terms of the content of chemical elements in soils. We summarized environmental legislation principles and actions in cases of exceeding soil quality standards. Comparing methodologically close legislations, the specificity of calculation of a soil quality standard should be taken into account. The standards for the content of chemical elements are differentiated depending on the properties of soils in Russia, Germany, China, and the Czech Republic; land use is taken into account in Canada, Germany, the Republic of South Africa, China (only for agricultural land), Australia, New Zealand, and the United States. Synergism of negative effects on organisms in case of polyelemental contamination is taken into account in the standards of Russia for element pairs Mn + V and Hg + Pb and in the standards of the United States for all substances.
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 | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".