MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038548398 · doi:10.1080/08865655.2007.9695670

United States‐Mexican border watershed assessment: Modeling nonpoint source pollution in Ambos Nogales

2007· article· en· W2038548398 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Laura M. Norman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Borderlands Studies · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNonpoint source pollutionWatershedSedimentPollutionEnvironmental scienceErosionAridObstacleWater resource managementGeographic information systemWater qualityEnvironmental planningEnvironmental resource managementGeographyComputer scienceRemote sensingEcologyGeologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Ecological considerations need to be interwoven with economic policy and planning along the United States‐Mexican border. Non‐point source pollution can have significant implications for the availability of potable water and the continued health of borderland ecosystems in arid lands. However, environmental assessments in this region present a host of unique issues and problems. A common obstacle to the solution of these problems is the integration of data with different resolutions, naming conventions, and quality to create a consistent database across the binational study area. This report presents a simple modeling approach to predict nonpoint source pollution that can be used for border watersheds. The modeling approach links a hillslopescale erosion‐prediction model and a spatially derived sediment‐delivery model within a geographic information system to estimate erosion, sediment yield, and sediment deposition across the Ambos Nogales watershed in Sonora, Mexico, and Arizona. This paper discusses the procedures used for creating a watershed database to apply the models and presents an example of the modeling approach applied to a conservation‐planning problem.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.415
Threshold uncertainty score0.635

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.302
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Borderlands StudiesSame topicHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207