MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046400785 · doi:10.2166/wst.2011.155

In search of effective bioassessment of urban stormwater pond sediments: enhancing the ‘sediment quality triad’ approach with oligochaete metrics

2011· article· en· W2046400785 on OpenAlexaff
Guillaume Tixier, Quintin Rochfort, Lee Grapentine, J. Maršálek, M. Lafont

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Science & Technology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLand Use and Ecosystem Services
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStormwaterEnvironmental scienceSurface runoffSedimentWater qualityUrban runoffUrbanizationHydrology (agriculture)Retention basinAquatic ecosystemEnvironmental engineeringWater resource managementEcologyEngineeringBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stormwater ponds have been widely used to control increased volumes and rates of surface runoff resulting from urbanization. As receiving waters, they are under the influence of intermittent pollution from urban wet-weather discharges. Meanwhile they offer new aquatic habitats balancing the transformation of initial ecosystems and their associated biodiversity. Bioassessment of stormwater facilities is therefore crucial to insure the preservation and rehabilitation of biodiversity in urban areas. Nonetheless, the application of traditional bioassessment methodologies such as the sediment quality triad (SQT), based on the comparisons with reference sites, is challenged by the artificial and atypical features of urban stormwater ponds. Our concern in finding a more specific and effective bioassessment methodology led us to consider associating the Oligochaete Index Methodology (OIM) with the SQT. This study shows that although some adjustments were needed, the OIM brought new and complementary information to the SQT assessment on the effects of contaminants and on the biological quality status of the sediment in a test urban stormwater pond.

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)0.003
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.454
Threshold uncertainty score0.431

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.256
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations9
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Science & TechnologySame topicLand Use and Ecosystem ServicesFrench-language works237,207