Bibliographic record
Abstract
A geochemical landscape is the geochemical characterization of a given part of the earth based on the joint influence of climate, relief, geology and vegetation on the chemical processes over a region. The primary purposes for assessing geochemical landscapes are for: agriculture, mineral exploration, environmental and human health studies and are carried out through geochemical surveys. The scale of a geochemical survey determines the sampling density and is generally focused on the scale of the geochemical process that is being measured. A rule of thumb is that the sample density should be 1/2 the size of the geochemical target being sought. Sample density and the spatial extent of a geochemical survey dictate the overall number of sites for the survey, Influences on the geochemistry of soils in Canada are characterized by the ecozone classification, regional bedrock geology and soils. The North American Soil Geochemical Landscapes Project (NASGLP) was designed to capture the geochemical variability of the continent at the Ecoprovince level at a spacing of one sample site per 40 km2. Sample design is an essential element of a geochemical survey. There are at least two ways to design a geochemical survey that is statistically defensible. The Generalized Random Tesselation Stratified Design (GRTS) is based on a spatially balanced selection of points over an area. Alternatively, an unbalanced, nested random sample design based on a designated sample resolution permits the use of statistical techniques such as analysis of variance to test the representivity of the data. Ecoregion designation is well established across Canada at the zone, region and district levels. Soil and bedrock geology maps have been compiled by various provincial territorial agencies but are not continuous across the country. The vertical profile of soils varies widely across the country. Northern soils are dominantly cyrosols and brunosols. Both the west coast and eastern part of Canada are dominated by podzolic soils and the western interior plains are dominated by chernozemic and luvisolic soils. The nature of the soil profile plays a role in the geochemical response that is observed from the base of the C horizon to the upper most layers.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.042 | 0.005 |
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".