MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4292385853 · doi:10.1139/cjss-2021-0140

In situ passivation effect of fertilizer passivation solutions with various pH on Pb-F contaminated soil

2022· article· en· W4292385853 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ying Jiang, Yunzhu Chen, Xuemei Wang, Zilichao Neng, Wanming Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Soil Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectrokinetic Soil Remediation Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPassivationFertilizerEnvironmental remediationSoil contaminationContaminationEnvironmental chemistrySoil pHChemistrySoil testMetalEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental engineeringSoil waterSoil science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Maoniuping rare earth mine in Mianning, Liangshan Prefecture, is the largest rare earth deposit in China and the second largest rare earth deposit in the world. During the mining of rare earths, F and Pb, both types of heavy metal waste can directly or indirectly enter the soil, causing local soil contamination, which in turn poses a threat to the health of local residents. In this study, soil samples were incubated with fertilizer passivation solutions with pH values of 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, with the soil water content adjusted to 50% of the maximum water holding capacity in the field. The Pb-F contamination of the soil samples was analyzed to determine the existing states of the soil F and Pb and to study the remediation effect of fertilizer passivation solutions on the Pb-F contaminated soil. The results showed that under different passivation conditions, the pH, Pb, and F of the soil substantially changed and the passivation effect was enhanced over time. The pH of the soil significantly increased. The analysis of the effects of F and Pb treatment revealed that when the passivation fertilizer solution of pH 5 was used, the available Pb and F in the soil decreased the most, and the residual state of Pb and F increased to 77.86% and 57.24%, respectively.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.316
Threshold uncertainty score0.890

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.194 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Soil ScienceSame topicElectrokinetic Soil Remediation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207