Fitzroy River Basin, Queensland, Australia. I. Identification of Sediment Sources in Impoundments and Flood Events
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Environmental Context. The Fitzroy River Basin is a major contributor to the loads of suspended sediment and nutrients reaching coastal areas in the southern Great Barrier Reef. Cost-effective investment in improved land, vegetation, and water management to lower these loads requires an understanding of the sources and movement of sediments within the basin. This multidisciplinary geochemical and modelling study provides for the first time a quantitative estimate of sediment sources and spatial and hydrology-related variation within the Fitzroy River Basin. Abstract. An integrated geochemical, modelling, and reconnaissance soil sampling approach has been used to identify the sources of sediment in the Fitzroy River Basin (FRB). The composition of sediment in weirs and dams within the FRB indicate that in the southern and central FRB the Dawson River contributes only a small basaltic component and the inputs are dominated by soils from the Surat and Bowen Basins. Rivers from the central FRB carry variable amounts of basaltic soils. In contrast, basaltic soils constitute the majority of sediment transported during flood events. Surat Basin soils form a minor component of flood events with little contribution from soils of the Bowen Basin despite it constituting the majority of the area of the central FRB. Soils from the Thomson Fold Belt constitute a substantial proportion of the sediment transported by, and retained in, impoundments in the central FRB and also dominate sediment delivered from the western FRB. This study will inform cost-effective investment by government to target remedial actions to reduce sediment and nutrient loads within the FRB that may be ultimately transported via the Fitzroy River Estuary to the southern Great Barrier Reef.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".