MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Lake Champlain Basin Program: Working together today for tomorrow

2001· article· en· W2032696314 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michaela Stickney, Colleen Hickey, Roland Hoerr

Bibliographic record

VenueLakes & Reservoirs Science Policy and Management for Sustainable Use · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Quality and Resources Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNew York State Department of Environmental Conservation
KeywordsWatershedStructural basinWatershed managementGeographySalt lakeStakeholderEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental planningEnvironmental sciencePolitical scienceGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Lake Champlain is the sixth largest freshwater lake in the USA. Lake Champlain’s watershed is shared by Vermont and New York in the USA, and Quebec in Canada. The lake’s remarkable drainage area to surface area ratio is 19:1. More than 600 000 people live in the Lake Champlain basin and millions visit each year. The lake’s relatively healthy natural resources sustain a thriving economy. The three most challenging environmental issues facing the Lake Champlain basin are reducing phosphorus pollution, preventing toxic contaminants from entering the lake and managing invasive aquatic species that are not native that threaten native flora and fauna. To effectively address these issues, the Lake Champlain Basin Program (LCBP) believes that all decisions about the lake must be based on accurate, ongoing scientific research and that citizen involvement and inter‐jurisdictional cooperation is vital. The programme has worked hard to identify all citizens and organizations that have a stake in Lake Champlain and draw them into a cooperative, sustainable management process. A 1990 Act of Congress (Public Law 101‐596) established a coordinated framework to study and understand the diverse systems of Lake Champlain and its basin in order to develop a comprehensive management plan to protect and restore lake and watershed resources. A 31‐member multi‐stakeholder board was established to develop the plan, a process that took 5 years and included numerous public meetings. Today, a Steering Committee oversees the implementation of the plan and the activities of the LCBP.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.231
Threshold uncertainty score0.773

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0140.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2310.044

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations15
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLakes & Reservoirs Science Policy and Management for Sustainable UseSame topicWater Quality and Resources StudiesFrench-language works237,207