Caractéristiques des conditions benthiques existant dans la partie amont du fjord du Saguenay (Québec, Canada)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1996, following torrential rains, a layer of clean sediments was deposited in the upstream part of the Saguenay Fjord. This layer acted as a damping layer between contaminated sediments and the Saguenay waters. It is important to collect information on the water–sediments interface, which is the site of exchanges between the sediments and the waters. Three oceanographical campaigns have allowed us to obtain the data on the velocity of the benthic currents and the properties of the surface sediments. The velocities have been obtained by means of two current meters located at 3 m from the bottom and by means of registered videos. These two types of measurements have given comparable results. The main information collected on the sediments were their water content, grain size, density, and the presence of benthic fauna. The distribution of the main biogenic structure, the tubes of polychetes, is related to the depth of the site and to the grain size of the sediments. For the surface layer, large variations of the water content were obtained during the field measurements. Tests with an axial tomodensitometer have revealed a large variation in the density of the sediments in the top 2.5 cm.Key words: Saguenay Fjord, benthic sediments, axial tomodensitometer.[Journal translation]
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".