MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1720183865 · doi:10.1016/j.ejrh.2015.05.015

A GIS-based approach for supporting groundwater protection in eskers: Application to sand and gravel extraction activities in Abitibi-Témiscamingue, Quebec, Canada

2015· article· en· W1720183865 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Simon Nadeau, Éric Rosa, Vincent Cloutier, Robert-André Daigneault, J J Veillette

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hydrology Regional Studies · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil and Land Suitability Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalUniversité du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue
FundersMinistère de l'Énergie et des Ressources Naturelles
KeywordsGroundwaterAquiferExtraction (chemistry)Resource (disambiguation)GeologyHydrology (agriculture)Water resource managementEnvironmental scienceGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Part of Abitibi-Témiscamingue in northwestern Quebec (25,750 km2), within the Quebec/Ontario Clay Belt, Canada. The focus is set on the unconfined granular aquifers found in eskers, the latter containing significant groundwater resources, both in terms of water quality and quantity. Yet, these glaciofluvial deposits also constitute the main source of exploitable sand and gravel and are therefore frequently at the roots of land use conflicts. Methods and indices based on the use of geographic information systems (GIS) were developed in support of land management strategies oriented towards the protection of groundwater resources in eskers of northwestern Quebec. A groundwater resource sensitivity index was defined for each 10 × 10 m parcel of esker on the basis of (1) an evaluation of the aquifer potential based on three geomorphological parameters observable on well-known granular aquifers and (2) estimates of the parameters included in the DRASTIC method. The pressure induced by sand and gravel extraction on the groundwater resources was subsequently evaluated on the basis of (1) the resource sensitivity index, and (2) the spatial density of sand and gravel extraction sites and groundwater wells. These calculations are used to suggest solutions for supporting the sustainable management of sand and gravel extraction activities at the regional scale and for highlighting sectors where field data acquisition is most needed.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.094

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations28
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Hydrology Regional StudiesSame topicSoil and Land Suitability AnalysisFrench-language works237,207