MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Where have All the Aboiteaux Gone? Mapping Burried Historic Drainage Systems in New Brunswick, Canada

2010· article· en· W1977305730 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Justin Rogers, Darcy J. Dignam, Raye Lahti, William S. Webb, Elissa Atkinson, Andri Hanson

Bibliographic record

Venue23rd EEGS Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil erosion and sediment transport
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShoreMarshArchaeologyPrehistoryFlooding (psychology)DrainageGeographyGeologyWetlandOceanographyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The provincial government of New Brunswick Canada has undertaken the task of rehabilitating historic agricultural marsh lands along the shores of the Petitcodiac River. Since this proposed undertaking will negatively impact shoreline indigenous soils, provincial regulations triggered an archaeological resources assessment. One component of the archaeological program conducted by AMEC was an EM31-SH survey of the proposed shoreline impact areas. Spatial reference was recorded using a Trimble AG114 Global Positioning System (GPS). The principal archaeological objective of the EM31-SH survey was to identify potential subsurface prehistoric and historic archaeological resources. Historically, since the 17th century, the shoreline marshes of the Petitcodiac River have been utilized for agricultural purposes; using a system of dykes (berms) and aboiteaux (drainage structures including oneway valves) that allow water to drain from the marsh while preventing river tidal waters from flooding the marsh. The construction of dykes and aboiteaux in the 1950s “eliminated” any preexisting historcal structures. Thus, while there remains physical remnants of the mid-19th century drainage system, there is little surficial evidence of the preexisting historical systems, Identifying the locations of the both potential prehistoric and historic archaeological features using traditional archaeological testing methods would have been both expensive and time consuming given the large area.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.291

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.153
Teacher spread0.147 · 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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue23rd EEGS Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental ProblemsSame topicSoil erosion and sediment transportFrench-language works237,207