Response of dissolved organic carbon dynamics to salinity in a <scp>Constructed Fen Peatland</scp> in the <scp>Athabasca Oil Sands</scp> region
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In northern Alberta, oil sands mining disturbs the boreal landscape, and reclamation to an ‘equivalent land capability’ is required. Industry is testing peatland construction as part of landscape reclamation. To determine if constructed peatlands can be self‐sustaining, an understanding of the cycling of solutes in pore water and their interactions with dissolved organic carbon (DOC) is needed since DOC can represent an important carbon loss from peatlands. DOC is of interest due to its biotic origin and use by the microbial community and impact on carbon budgets. Additionally, salinity as a control on DOC quantity and quality may be important in oil sands reclaimed systems due to the likelihood of elevated sodium (Na+) from saline groundwater input derived from tailings used to construct catchments, and natural sources. For this research, DOC concentration and quality, and Na+ concentration were measured in the rooting zone (10 and 30 cm depth) of Nikanotee Fen to evaluate the role of Na+ in DOC dynamics. DOC concentration and quality suggested that DOC in the fen was largely sourced from vegetation inputs, with quality also suggesting increases in vegetation inputs between years. Elevated Na+ at 30 cm below ground surface corresponded with high concentrations of labile DOC. At 10 cm below ground surface, sampling location and temperature were the best predictors of DOC concentration and quality. With expected increases in Na+, increased production of mobile and microbially active DOC may lead to higher rates of carbon export.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".