MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1481806616 · doi:10.1002/aqc.1200

Coastal zone planning: a geophysical classification of inlets to define ecological representation

2011· article· en· W1481806616 on OpenAlexafffund
Michelle E. Greenlaw, John C. Roff, Anna M. Redden, Karel A. Allard

Bibliographic record

VenueAquatic Conservation Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal plant biology
Canadian institutionsAcadia UniversityEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsHydrographyInletShoreGeographyEstuaryLittoral zoneOceanographyEnvironmental resource managementEcologyGeologyEnvironmental scienceCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Selection of candidate sites for designation as Marine Protected Areas in coastal waters still involves many arbitrary choices. Analysis of candidate sites, according to a combination of geophysical and ecological criteria, can lead to the recognition of representative coastal areas, and can potentially reduce the arbitrary nature of these decisions. In coastal areas, estuaries have long been classified according to their geophysical properties. Bays and coves are at least as diverse in character, yet existing classifications are dependent largely upon description of the benthic communities themselves and take little advantage of existing hydrographic and digital information. The classification of coastal inlets proposed here differs significantly from others previously published. It is based on a fully quantified description and analysis of the basic geomorphological and hydrographic features of the coastal environment, and is designed to represent specific community types including α‐diversity and β‐diversity patterns. The classification, which should be globally applicable, was first applied to Nova Scotia's Atlantic shoreline where inlets fall into 11 recognizable types that are related to selected biological community types. Of these inlet types, only one is sufficiently protected, according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature's conservation target of at least 10%. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.081

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.178 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAquatic Conservation Marine and Freshwater EcosystemsSame topicMarine and coastal plant biologyFrench-language works237,207