Phenolic profiles in natural and reconstructed soils from the oil sands region of Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Turcotte, I. and Quideau, S. A. 2012. Phenolic profiles in natural and reconstructed soils from the oil sands region of Alberta. Can. J. Soil Sci. 92: 153-164. This research was conducted in the Athabasca oil sands reclamation area of northeastern Alberta, where land reclamation entails reconstruction of soil-like profiles using salvaged materials such as peat and mining by-products. Successful reclamation is in part dependent on the quality of the organic capping of these reconstructed soils. This study investigated organic matter composition between reconstructed and natural soils. Soil samples (0-10 cm) were taken from 45 plots to represent a range of reclaimed and undisturbed sites. The botanical origin of soil organic matter was characterised through cupric oxide oxidation, which yields lignin monomers hypothesized to reflect vegetation inputs and extent of decomposition based on time since reclamation. Additional soil organic matter parameters were obtained using acid hydrolysis, physical separation and ramped cross polarisation C-13 nuclear magnetic resonance techniques. Yields of vanillyl phenols, coumaryl phenols, p-hydroxy phenols, summed lignin phenols and total phenolic constituents were significantly higher in natural soils than in reconstructed soils. We suggest that there may be an accelerated decomposition of peat phenols in reconstructed soils, which would leave only those phenols representative of the vascular plant history accumulated in the initial peat profile.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".