MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988244343 · doi:10.7202/1021038ar

Espèces végétales indicatrices des échanges d’eau entre tourbière et aquifère

2014· article· fr· W1988244343 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Justine Munger, Stéphanie Pellerin, Marie Larocque, Miryane Ferlatte

Bibliographic record

VenueLe Naturaliste canadien · 2014
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPeatlands and Wetlands Ecology
Canadian institutionsHôtel-Dieu de MontréalUniversité de Montréal
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesMedical Research Council
KeywordsHumanitiesForestryGeographyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les tourbières jouent plusieurs rôles dans l’hydrologie de surface. Les liens hydrologiques entre les tourbières et les eaux souterraines (aquifères) demeurent toutefois peu connus, ce qui rend les zones d’interaction difficiles à identifier. Ce projet avait pour but d’identifier des espèces et des associations d’espèces floristiques indicatrices de zones d’échanges tourbière-aquifère. Ainsi, des suivis piézométriques et des inventaires floristiques ont été réalisés dans 9 tourbières situées dans le Centre-du-Québec et en Abitibi-Témiscamingue. Les échanges tourbière-aquifère ont été identifiés à l’aide de gradients de charges hydrauliques et les espèces indicatrices à l’aide de l’indice de valeur indicatriceINDVAL. Cette méthode a entre autres permis d’identifier 2 espèces (Carex limosaetSphagnum russowii) et 4 associations d’espèces indicatrices d’un apport en eau souterraine à la tourbière. Les espèces indicatrices pourraient devenir un outil utile, rapide et peu coûteux pour prédire les zones d’interactions tourbière-aquifère et ainsi faciliter la tâche des gestionnaires du territoire.

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 score0.694
Threshold uncertainty score0.608

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations6
Published2014
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLe Naturaliste canadienSame topicPeatlands and Wetlands EcologyFrench-language works237,207