Proposed changes to the soil family taxon within the Canadian System of Soil Classification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The soil family was developed in the 1960s as the fourth level of taxa within the hierarchical structure of the Canadian System of Soil Classification. The original aim of the soil family category was to provide a framework for checking and establishing limits for soil series while providing a link between the series and the subgroup level. Its intended use was to define and group numerous soil series based on soil characteristics important for the purpose of applying appropriate management practices. In the current Canadian System of Soil Classification, taxa at the family level represent subdivisions of the subgroups. Classification of mineral soils at the family level is based on properties of the parent materials which include particle size; soil mineralogy; reaction (soil pH); calcareousness; depth to bedrock and permafrost; as well as climactic factors: soil temperature and soil moisture regimes. The soil family particle-size classes were originally intended as a compromise between both agronomic and engineering influences; however, the resulting product has limited functionality because of differences in definitions between engineering and agronomic grain sizes and non-alignment with soil textural classes. Consequently, classification and use of the family taxon have largely been ignored. Some adjustments to the family taxon for mineral soils and terric layers in organic soils are proposed including realignment of classes in the current family particle-size triangle to follow the divisions of the soil textural classes. Minor adjustments to mineralogy classes and depth to bedrock are also proposed.
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 | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".