Humus Form ERB 2010. A European Reference Base for humus forms: proposal for a morpho-functional classification.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STRUCTURE OF THE CLASSIFICATION \nThe classification has been conceived for forest soils, for which more information and larger datasets are available, as well as for soils of grasslands, pastures and wetland areas, with a negligible to strong human impact. It is not suited to tilled agroecosystems, because tillage destroys the “natural” organization and radically alters the functioning of the surface horizons. The manuals of the FAO (2006), IUSS Working Group \nWRB (2007) or Soil Survey Staff (2010) are more appropriate for describing and classifying these soils. An \nongoing Canadian-German project on topsoil characterization of arable soils will be presented at the IUSS conference 2010. \nThe humus form classification is based on the sequence and morphological characteristics, including \nmorphological evidence of biological activity, of organic and/or organo-mineral horizons observed and \ndescribed in the field. In some cases a few basic chemical data (pH, organic carbon content) are required. A complete set of diagnostic organic and organo-mineral horizons, which are mutually exclusive, is defined. \nThe classification keys use diagnostic horizons and other complementary topsoil or environmental data. \nEvery mineral horizon cited in this paper has been classed and named using the manual of the IUSS Working Group (2007). \nThe first dichotomy of the classification separates never saturated and saturated (submerged) humus \nforms: \n- TERRESTRIAL humus forms: these are never submerged and/or water-saturated, or only for a few days per year. A or AE (non hydromorphic) organo-mineral horizons characterize these forms. \nIn a second and more detailed step of the classification, Terroforms (= typical) are separated from Entiforms (= directly on bedrock or parent material) and Paraforms (= atypical); - SEMITERRESTRIAL humus forms: these are submerged and/or water-saturated. Hydroforms are submerged and/or water-saturated for relatively short periods (less than 6 months per year) and are characterized by Ag or AEg hydromorphic organo-mineral horizons; Histoforms and \nEpihistoforms are submerged and/or water-saturated for protracted periods (usually more than 6 months per year) and are characterized by organo-mineral Aa or organic H horizons. \nWithin each group of the Terrestrial compartment (Terroforms, Entiforms and Paraforms) and within \nthe group of Hydroforms of the Semiterrestrial compartment, the same five “biological types” are identified on a morpho-functional basis: Mull, Amphi, Moder, Tangel and Mor. Within Histoforms and Epihistoforms, the Tangel biological type is not present, but a characteristic “soil moisture regime” generates \nthe Anmoor biological type. These “biological types” can be considered as the first taxonomic level of the \nclassification. For Terroforms and Histoforms, the most important and best-known groups of humus forms, a second level of classification has been created. Here, each unit of the first level (Mull, Moder, …) is split in two or more biological sub-types (i.e. Eumull, Mesomull; Hemimoder, Dysmoder…). \nSpecific vocabulary listed in the section “specific terms”, and topsoil layers detailed under the heading \n“diagnostic horizons”, furnish the potential user with the necessary information for his/her field investigation of all Terrestrial and Semiterrestrial humus forms.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.045 |
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".