MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2061668559 · doi:10.1139/l07-030

Impact des changements climatiques sur les plans de gestion des lacs Saint-François et Aylmer au sud du Québec

2007· article· en· W2061668559 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Louis-Guillaume Fortin, Richard Turcotte, Stéphane Pugin, Jean-François Cyr, François Picard

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsCentre de Développement du Porc du Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceClimate changeAdaptabilityCurrent (fluid)Hydrology (agriculture)GeographyWater resource managementClimatologyEnvironmental resource managementGeologyOceanographyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study presents the results of a pilot project, for the Saint-François and Aylmer lakes located in southern Quebec, aimed at developing a method to evaluate the adaptability of a current dam management plan to global climate changes. The hydrological simulations computed using available climate scenarios indicated modifications in annual water yields, from a 13% increase to a 30% decrease, and earlier spring floods. Peak flows, winter and summer low flows, and the level of increase in water yields vary depending on the studied climate scenario. The simulation of the current management plan shows that climate changes will affect the current trade-off between the various management objectives of the reservoirs. Adaptation solutions to the current management plan appeared to be feasible, but no unique solution applicable to all climate scenarios was found.Key words: climate change, dam, impacts, adaptation, hydrologic modeling, Quebec.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.177

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations20
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering→Same topicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies→French-language works237,207→