Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The history of the development and evolution of ecological land classifications that encompass the Canada landmass is outlined in the following: Marshall and P.H. Schut (1999). A national ecological framework for Canada - overview; on-line at http://sis.agr. gc.ca/cansis/nsdb/ecostrat/intro.html [accessed March 9, 2010]. In the late 1960s there was recognition of the need for a nation-wide ecological framework to provide standardized, multi-scale geographical reporting and monitoring units. One aim was to think, act, and plan based on ecosystems rather than have emphasis on individual elements. Ecological land classification incorporates all major components of ecosystems: air, water, land, and biota, including humans. It is based on a hierarchy with ecosystems nested within ecosystems. In 1976 the Canada Committee on Ecological Land Classification was created to develop (1) a uniform national ecological approach to terrestrial ecosystem classification and mapping and (2) to encourage the use of the ecological approach to sustainable resource management and planning. The first version had 7 levels of generalization and from the start there was recognition that the spatial units needed revisions. In 1991 a collaborative project was undertaken after the first State of Environment report for Canada published in 1986 by some federal, provincial and territorial governments. The objective was to revise the previous work and establish a common ecological framework for Canada. The working group focused on 3 levels - ecozones, ecoregions, and ecodistricts - and the result was a national report entitled "A National Ecological ramework for Canada" released in 1996. The report described the methodology used to construct the ecological framework maps, the concepts of the hierarchical levels of generalization, narrative descriptions of each ecozone and ecoregion and their linkages to various data sources. The State of the Environment Reporting spatial framework is maintained by the CanSIS group at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Since 1996, groups in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Nova Scotia have provided more in-depth descriptions of the ecological units in these provinces. The NAFTA Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) made some modifications to the State of the Environment Reporting spatial framework for Canada to provide an integrated perspective for all of North America. Results were released in 1997 as "Ecological Regions of North America - Towards a Common Perspective". When the North America perspective was being developed, an ecoprovince level of generalization, between ecozone and ecoregion, was compiled for the Canadian framework. For Canada, the CANSIS database consists of 15 ecozones, 53 ecoprovinces, 194 ecoregions, and 1021 ecodistricts. For North America, the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) database has the following number of units: Level 1- 15; Level 2 - 52; Level 3 - 182, and Level 4 - not as yet completed. Geochemical data sets that are geo-referenced can be "cookie cut" using any eco-classification system and GIS. The different systems of reporting are similar but not identical and the one being used should be clearly stated. The CanSIS system is widely used in Canada and is recommended for national and regional reporting. The scale or level of data used depends on the project purpose and the amount of data available. If using the more detailed scales of eco-classification information, it is necessary to have sufficient data points within the individual ecosystem polygons to ensure the validity of statistical comparisons.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,012 | 0,017 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,009 | 0,018 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,009 | 0,011 |
| Communication savante | 0,014 | 0,011 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,009 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,016 | 0,008 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».