Adapting and Verifying the Liming Index for Enhanced Rock Weathering Minerals as an Alternative Liming Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Acidic soils limit plant nutrient availability, leading to deficiencies and reduced crop yields. Agricultural liming agents address these issues and are crucial for deploying silicate amendments used in enhanced rock weathering (ERW) for carbon sequestration and emission reduction. Grower recommendations for liming agents are based on the liming index (LI), which combines the neutralizing value (NV) and fineness rating (FR) to predict a mineral’s acidity neutralization relative to pure calcite. However, the LI was originally developed for carbonate minerals, and its applicability to silicates remains uncertain, with studies often yielding inconclusive results on soil carbon and liming efficiency. This study aims to evaluate the liming efficiency of silicates. We determined the LI of five candidate ERW minerals (basalt, olivine, wollastonite, kimberlite, and montmorillonite) and compared them to pure calcite. Post-NV acid digestion, we characterized the minerals and soils, applying nonparametric statistical tests (Wilcoxon, Kendall) to correlate liming results with LI, dosage, and amendment methods. We developed an empirical model incorporating mineralogy and kinetics to explain silicate behavior in liming, considering soil, climate, and crop factors.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".