MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410370169 · doi:10.18690/jet.17.3.39-53.2024

HEAVY METAL CONTENT IN SOILS OF SELECTED HOP PLANTATIONS IN RELATION TO THEIR NATURAL BACKGROUND

2025· article· en· W4410370169 on OpenAlex
Katja Črnec, Lucija Božiljak, B. Vrščaj

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Energy Technology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicHops Chemistry and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHop (telecommunications)Soil waterEnvironmental scienceRelation (database)Natural (archaeology)Soil scienceComputer scienceGeographyTelecommunicationsArchaeologyData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Heavy metals (HM) are present in soil naturally [1], due to weathering of the element-rich parent rock and anthropogenic sources (industry, agriculture, traffic, energy production) [2–4]. The agricultural source of the increased HM concentrations in soil are HM-containing fertilisers and pesticides. Agricultural soils are often considered polluted, and are, therefore, subject to soil contamination monitoring for food safety reasons. Permanent crops are particularly at risk, due to the intensive and traditional (over)use of pesticides and fertilisers. Hop plantations are a special type of economically important permanent crop in the Lower Savinja region. The product, the dried hop cones, is mainly exported. The cultivation of hops requires intensive soil tillage, fertilisation, and, above all, constant protection of the hop plant by usage of pesticides. According to Slovenian legislation [5], the HM concentration is considered elevated if the HM concentration in the soil is above the limit immission value (LIV), polluted if it is above the warning immission value (WIV), and critically polluted if it is above the critical immission value (CIV). The HM content was analysed in the soils of 10 hop plantations in the Lower Savinja region. The soil samples were dried, ground and sieved in the FVO laboratory, and analysed by Bureau Veritas Commodities (Canada) using Aqua Regia extraction to determine the 'pseudo-total content' for 37 elements (Ag, Al, As, Au, B, Ba, Bi, Ca, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Fe, Ga, Hg, K, La, Mg, Mn, Mo, Na, Ni, P, Pb, S, Sb, Sc, Se, Sr, Te, Th, Ti, TI, U, V, W, and Zn), 10 of which (in the frames) are considered common HM soil contaminants. The HM concentrations in the soils of the hop plantations were within the natural background values [1] (below the LIV), with the exception of Cd, Cu and Zn, which were above the LIV in some cases. The Cd concentration was elevated in 90 % (it exceeded the LIV). The hop fields were not contaminated with Cd – as the concentration did not exceed the WIV. The Cu concentration was within the natural background values in 20 % of the hop plantations (well below the LIV), 30 % were elevated (exceeded the LIV), while 50 % were polluted with Cu (the Cu exceeded the WIV). The Zn concentration was below the LIV value in 80 % of the hop plantations, 10 % exceeded the LIV value, while 10 % of the hop plantations were considered to be polluted with Zn (the Zn exceeded the WIV value) [6]. As expected, we found that the soils of the hop plantations contained significantly increased, and, in some places, exceeded quantities of Cu and Zn, and in some cases also Cd. Elevated concentrations of HM may also be reflected in other parts of the environment, while the effects on food quality were not detected (i.e., elevated concentrations in beer).

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.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.366

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.323 · 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