MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063538817 · doi:10.4296/cwrj3603894

Developing Indicators for Regional Water Quality Assessment: An Example from British Columbia Community Watersheds

2011· article· en· W2063538817 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Sandra Brown, L. M. Lavkulich, H. Schreier

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Water Resources Journal / Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Resources Canada
KeywordsWatershedEnvironmental scienceWater qualitySurface runoffLand coverTurbidityHydrology (agriculture)STREAMSMountain pine beetleLand useStormEcologyGeographyForestryGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An increased understanding of regional surface water quality and the key factors which differentiate regional from local differences is necessary for monitoring impacts such as mountain pine beetle infestation and related land management practices. This study develops a framework to identify water quality indicators which differentiate parameters influenced by rock type, by relatively short term anthropogenic activities, and those resulting from longer term climatic variability. Rock type was an overriding factor related to stream water chemistry in this British Columbia case study; with differences between watersheds differentiated by Ca, EC, Al and Fe. Grouping watersheds by their dominant rock type permitted the investigation of water quality with other watershed characteristics. The % forest cover, % pine cover, and dominant runoff processes demonstrated significant relationships with soluble cations, metals, turbidity and total organic carbon. Turbidity levels showed low variability, and relationships with mountain pine beetle were not strong; suggesting the need for more detailed data sets, selective monitoring of storm events, and longer term monitoring to improve predictive capacity.

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)0.003
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.089

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.164 · 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

Citations4
Published2011
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Water Resources Journal / Revue canadienne des ressources hydriquesSame topicHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207