MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2004843489 · doi:10.4296/cwrj2603325

Integrated Watershed Planning for the Northern River Basins: Thirty Years and Counting

2001· article· en· W2004843489 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Steven A. Kennett

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Water Resources Journal / Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWatershedDrainage basinWatershed managementIntegrated business planningResource (disambiguation)Comprehensive planningWater resource managementCumulative effectsStructural basinEnvironmental planningEnvironmental resource managementHydrology (agriculture)Environmental scienceGeographyGeologyComputer scienceBusinessCartographyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Integrated watershed planning is a proactive resource management strategy to address cumulative environmental effects. This strategy is described briefly, and the obstacles to cumulative effects management that it is intended to overcome are identified. Cumulative effects issues in the Slave and Athabasca River basins are summarized. Recommendations for integrated watershed planning from four studies that have examined water management issues in the northern river basins over a period of 30 years are reviewed. The current state of integrated watershed planning in this region is discussed, followed by a brief summary of competing perspectives on this issue. The conclusion is that despite repeated recommendations and government policy statements supporting integrated watershed planning, this strategy has yet to be implemented in the northern river basins.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.618
Threshold uncertainty score0.759

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.011
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.184 · 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
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Water Resources Journal / Revue canadienne des ressources hydriquesSame topicHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207