MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2031456643 · doi:10.2118/163789-ms

Wetland Restoration Using Mangroves in Southern Louisiana

2013· article· en· W2031456643 on OpenAlexaff
Maxine J. Madison, Sarah K. Mack, Robert R. Lane, John W. Day

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCoastal wetland ecosystem dynamics
Canadian institutionsConocoPhillips (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWetlandMangroveRestoration ecologyWildlifeSustainabilityCarbon sequestrationHabitatMarshEnvironmental resource managementRecreationEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental protectionGeographyEnvironmental planningFisheryEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Wetland restoration is essential in addressing wetland loss along the coasts of Southern Louisiana. Wetland restoration techniques, such as planting mangroves, provide a wealth of benefits such as storm surge reduction, fish and wildlife habitat, carbon sequestration, recreation, job creation, and economic development that are vital to the sustainability of coastal Louisiana. The Louisiana Land & Exploration Company, a wholly owned subsidiary of ConocoPhillips, is one of the largest private owners of coastal marsh in the nation, owning approximately 640,000 acres located in the coastal zone of southeast Louisiana. A pilot project was recently initiated by ConocoPhillips and Tierra Resources to apply the latest scientific approaches to measure the benefits of mangrove plantings for restoration purposes and viability of carbon sequestration on ConocoPhillips’ property in Southern Louisiana. This paper discusses the pilot project as well as the application of the first certified methodology for quantifying the carbon sequestration benefits of this wetland restoration project. Results from this three-year (2012–2015) pilot project will address science gaps, determine costs, benefits, and barriers to implementation.

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)0.000
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 score0.129
Threshold uncertainty score0.257

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.192 · 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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCoastal wetland ecosystem dynamicsFrench-language works237,207