MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2033593214 · doi:10.4296/cwrj2502181

Cumulative Impacts/Risk Assessment of Water Removal or Loss from the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River System

2000· article· en· W2033593214 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ralph J. Moulton, Douglas R. Cuthbert

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Water Resources Journal / Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicTree-ring climate responses
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceHydrology (agriculture)Cumulative effectsRisk assessmentWater resource managementGeologyEcologyGeotechnical engineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River are a source of water for many communities and industries around their shores. A portion of this water removed from the lakes is consumed and not returned. There is a strong potential that consumption of water will increase in the future. In addition, there is concern that water could be removed from the Great Lakes for export to other countries. Any removal of water from the Great Lakes that is not returned will lower water levels in the lakes and St. Lawrence River. It is anticipated that warmer conditions may result from anthropogenic climate change, which could cause a further lowering of Great Lakes-St. Lawrence water levels. A qualitative evaluation was undertaken of the potential impacts of decreased water levels and of the risks posed by these impacts.

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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.889
Threshold uncertainty score0.220

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations11
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Water Resources Journal / Revue canadienne des ressources hydriquesSame topicTree-ring climate responsesFrench-language works237,207