Applying a regional coastal wetland monitoring framework to refine and report on wildlife and habitat delisting criteria in the Bay of Quinte Area of Concern
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In most Canadian Areas of Concern, fish and wildlife populations and their habitats (i.e. Beneficial Use Impairments 3 and 14) have been listed as impaired. While much work has addressed other Beneficial Use Impairments, there has often been a lack of specific data and methodologies for evaluating fish and wildlife populations and their habitats. This article presents a methodology for refining delisting criteria for wildlife and habitat Beneficial Use Impairments in the Bay of Quinte Area of Concern using indices of condition in a coastal wetland monitoring framework. Data have been collected to provide information on loss of fish and wildlife habitat (water quality and submerged aquatic vegetation and aquatic macroinvertebrate communities) and degradation of fish and wildlife populations (fish, amphibian and breeding bird communities). Three potential models for delisting are presented using the submerged aquatic vegetation community data as an example. For all coastal wetland attributes considered through the framework, Bay of Quinte coastal wetlands were generally in better condition than other Canadian sites along the Lake Ontario shoreline.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".