MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989764392 · doi:10.1080/00288330.2012.663764

Acid Mine Drainage Index (AMDI): a benthic invertebrate biotic index for assessing coal mining impacts in New Zealand streams

2012· article· en· W1989764392 on OpenAlexaff
DP Gray, JS Harding

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMine drainage and remediation techniques
Canadian institutionsGolder Associates (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBenthic zoneInvertebrateBiotic indexAcid mine drainageEnvironmental scienceSTREAMSCoal miningDrainageBenthosEcologyHydrology (agriculture)Environmental chemistryGeologyCoalBiologyGeographyChemistryArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Acid mine drainage (AMD) is a widespread phenomenon globally. Drainage into streams from coal mines often contains a cocktail of acidic waters high in dissolved metals, and consequently stream invertebrate communities may be severely impacted. Traditionally, the intensity of impacts has been assessed by combinations of water chemistry and benthic invertebrate metrics; however, a metric specifically designed for assessing mining impacts has not been developed. We propose a benthic invertebrate biotic index: the Acid Mine Drainage Index (AMDI), based on species presence data. The AMDI has been developed by associating water chemistry and benthic invertebrate community data collected from 91 sites. AMD indicator scores for 57 taxa were calculated using weighted averaging. Site scores can range from 0 (severely impacted) to 100 (unimpacted) and sites can be categorised as ‘severely impacted’, ‘impacted’ or ‘unimpacted’. Comparisons between AMDI and traditional indices indicated the AMDI is more accurate at detecting mine drainage.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.103
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations47
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater ResearchSame topicMine drainage and remediation techniquesFrench-language works237,207