MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970389670 · doi:10.1680/ehah.2011.164.4.245

Overcoming barriers: Milk River Irrigation Project, Montana, USA

2011· article· en· W1970389670 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Fredric L. Quivik

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Engineering History and Heritage · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArchaeology and Natural History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLand reclamationBayLeveeIrrigationHydrology (agriculture)Water resource managementEnvironmental scienceGeographyArchaeologyGeologyCartographyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The United States Reclamation Service (predecessor to the United States Bureau of Reclamation) developed the Milk River Irrigation Project in Montana a century ago. To supplement the waters of the Milk River, which flows into the Gulf of Mexico, reclamation engineers developed a storage reservoir on the St. Mary River, which flows into Canada and on to Hudson’s Bay. Although the reservoir’s dam is an earth embankment, which presented reclamation engineers with a rather modest challenge, the project required overcoming more substantial barriers, an international boundary and a North American continental divide (the divide separating the waters of Hudson’s Bay from the waters of the Gulf of Mexico). This article uses the storage project of the Milk River Irrigation Project to illustrate other facets of the irrigation movement’s ability to overcome barriers besides the construction of monumental dams, for which it is most widely known.

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score0.165

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Engineering History and HeritageSame topicArchaeology and Natural HistoryFrench-language works237,207