MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051495220 · doi:10.1080/00207233.2014.90801

Geographic Information System-based tools in environmental management

2014· article· en· W2051495220 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Zeinab Bedri, Michael Bruen

Bibliographic record

VenueArrow - TU Dublin (Technological University Dublin) · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersQueen's UniversityTrinity College DublinUniversity College DublinQueen's University Belfast
KeywordsFlexibility (engineering)IrishInformation systemWork (physics)Environmental planningEnvironmental resource managementGeographic information systemComputer scienceGeographyEngineeringEnvironmental scienceCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors reviewed existing modelling platforms as part of a large study of water and pollution pathways through catchments in Ireland (Irish EPA Pathways project). Worldwide, work on producing catchment management tools (CMTs) has been underway for some time and some of the tools identified here date from as early as 1989. Some of the management problems and model conceptualisations have not changed very much but now there is a stronger emphasis on water quality and more concern about a wider range of contaminants. What has changed substantially is the use of Geographical Information System and Graphical Windows interfaces as technologies supporting a wider practical use of these tools. This review of existing CMTs identified three systems which would be candidates if a CMT had to be deployed immediately in Ireland. All have a rigid catchment model structure and lack the flexibility to include any new scientific information or flow-path conceptualisation that may emerge. The same modelling structure is used for all parts of the catchment, with spatial variation represented by parameter variation only and not variation in model structure. They also have rigid graphical user interfaces which cannot be tailored to match any specific requirements that may emerge from the pathways end-user workshops. Thus a CMT with a more flexible and accessible modelling structure is required if the results of current research are to be incorporated.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0110.021
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0120.017
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.003

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.156
Teacher spread0.150 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArrow - TU Dublin (Technological University Dublin)Same topicHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207