Solonetzic soils of Canada: Genesis, distribution, and classification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Miller, J. J. and Brierley, J. A. 2011. Solonetzic soils of Canada: Genesis, distribution, and classification. Can. J. Soil Sci. 91: 889-902. Soils of the Solonetzic order are defined as having a Solonetzic B horizon designated as a Bn or Bnt horizon. The Solonetzic Order includes four great groups: Solonetz, Solodized Solonetz, Solod, and Vertic Solonetz. Solonetzic soils are thought to develop via the stepwise pedogenic processes of salinization, solonization (desalinzation and alkalization), and solodization. Soluble salts are brought into the soil pedon of Solonetzic soils by capillary movement and evaporation from spring to fall, and upward water flow from the water table to the freezing zone in the winter deposits salts upon freezing. Solonization proceeds when desalinization lowers the total salt content and alkalization is initiated by high exchangeable Na. Solodization occurs when anisotropic flow conditions or a change in vertical hydraulic gradients prevent capillary rise and replenishment of soluble Na in the Bn horizon. Two common Solonetzic catenas are found in the prairies. In the first sequence, Gleyed Solonetz or Solonetz occur in the depressional areas of the landscape, and soils then grade through Solodized Solonetz, Solods, and in some cases, Chernozems or normal zonal soils at higher elevations. In the second sequence, Solods are found in the lowest topographic position, while Solodized Solonetz, Solonetz and Chernozems are found at progressively higher slope positions. Solonetzic soils have unique properties that adversely affect their use for agriculture and other land uses (e.g., construction, septic systems). Further interdisciplinary research is required to better understand the genesis of these soils at the “meter scale” or local landscape level because of the extreme spatial variability of these soils.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.025 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".