{"id":"W2146892716","doi":"10.4296/cwrj3102105","title":"An Environmental Benefit-Cost Analysis Case Study of Nutrient Management in an Agricultural Watershed","year":2006,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Canadian Water Resources Journal / Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques","topic":"Soil and Water Nutrient Dynamics","field":"Environmental Science","cited_by":12,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada; University of Guelph","keywords":"Watershed; Manure management; Manure; Nutrient management; Environmental science; Agriculture; Unit (ring theory); Eutrophication; Water quality; Watershed management; Water resource management; Agricultural science; Business; Hydrology (agriculture); Nutrient; Mathematics; Geography; Computer science; Engineering; Agronomy; Ecology","routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":true,"ca_venue":true,"about_ca":true,"invisible_to_affiliation_only":true},"retraction":null,"screen":null,"direct_labels":[],"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.001798182,0.0009159842,0.0007067133,0.00167611,0.003242536,0.001962875,0.00139539,0.003005238,0.005210735],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00313973,0.0005150631,0.001045212,0.002087962,0.001196695,0.001781415,0.001480314,0.001342694,0.000251744],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00700991,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00381802,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.07886914,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.1182561,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9988135,0.0005440842,0.00004065857,0.00007021862,0.000285005,0.0002465922],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9977371,0.001477922,0.0001130951,0.0000678275,0.0002384124,0.0003656907],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"simulation_or_modeling","study_design_gemma":"observational","study_design_scores_codex":[0.001732025,0.003641217,0.03119058,0.0004116676,0.0002726723,0.01967692,0.001528236,0.808322,0.006287165,0.05531178,0.01061259,0.0610132],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0008692085,0.002101779,0.02243749,0.0001421379,0.0002896144,0.00262091,0.007254724,0.9155435,0.004395021,0.02761612,0.01651877,0.0002107384],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.933135,0.0005734873,0.01993019,0.002732971,0.00005391009,0.0007502252,0.001101729,0.0001021755,0.04162013],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9779905,0.0003668372,0.01669086,0.00008845801,0.00001240389,0.0001861524,0.000214925,0.00002216239,0.00442768],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.9211308,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.1568201,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"machine_scores":{"provisional":true,"baseline":true,"maturity_gate_passed":false,"score_opus":0.007386019973142247,"score_gpt":0.1919249959682809,"score_spread":0.1845389759951386,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","note":"Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed). Scores rank; they never assert a category."}}