Bibliographic record
Abstract
Soil quality concepts are commonly used to evaluate sustainable land management in agroecosystems. The objectives of this review were to trace the importance of soil organic matter (SOM) in Canadian sustainable land management studies and illustrate the role of SOM and aggregation in sustaining soil functions. Canadian studies on soil quality were initiated in the early 1980s and showed that loss of SOM and soil aggregate stability were standard features of nonsustainable land use. Subsequent studies have evaluated SOM quality using the following logical sequence: soil purpose and function, processes, properties and indicators, and methodology. Limiting steps in this soil quality framework are the questions of critical limits and standardization for soil properties. At present, critical limits for SOM are selected using a commonly accepted reference value or based on empirically derived relations between SOM and a specific soil process or function (e.g., soil fertility, productivity, or erodibility). Organic matter fractions (e.g., macro-organic matter, light fraction, microbial biomass, and mineralizable C) describe the quality of SOM. These fractions have biological significance for several soil functions and processes and are sensitive indicators of changes in total SOM. Total SOM influences soil compactibility, friability, and soil water-holding capacity while aggregated SOM has major implications for the functioning of soil in regulating air and water infiltration, conserving nutrients, and influencing soil permeability and erodibility. Overall, organic matter inputs, the dynamics of the sand-sized macro-organic matter, and the soil aggregation process are important factors in maintaining and regulating organic matter functioning in soil.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".