MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393262056 · doi:10.5558/tfc2024-008

Macronutrients, metals, and metalloid concentrations in non-industrial wood ash in relation to provincial land application limits in Ontario, Canada

2024· article· en· W4393262056 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Batool S. Syeda, Norman D. Yan, Shaun A. Watmough

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCoal and Its By-products
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityTrent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetalloidHeavy metalsEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental chemistryRelation (database)Environmental protectionChemistryMetallurgyMetalMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Non-industrial wood ash (NIWA) provided by residents who heat with wood, is rich in base-cations and other nutrients and may be used as a forest soil amendment to return nutrients lost through acid deposition. However, due to concerns regarding high trace metal concentrations, most wood ash is landfilled in Canada. This study investigated the chemical variability of NIWA of individual samples and homogenized mixtures to determine if they met Ontario provincial trace metal restriction limits. One hundred and seven ash and 10 charcoal samples collected from residents of Muskoka, Ontario, and three 10-sample composites were analyzed. Chemical composition varied among individual samples, but nutrient levels were within or higher than reported ranges for industrial wood ash, while trace metal values were lower. Ninety-seven percent (104 of 107) of the samples were within Ontario Regulation 267/03 of the Nutrient Management Act, and after homogenization, all samples were below soil application restriction limits. This study indicates that NIWA can be safely used as a forest soil amendment but recommends routine testing of batch samples prior to application.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.265

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.186 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Forestry ChronicleSame topicCoal and Its By-productsFrench-language works237,207