MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078752052 · doi:10.4296/cwrj2701117

Comment on "The Cultures of Flood Management in Canada: Insights from the 1997 Red River Experience" by Dan Shrubsole, Canadian Water Resources Journal 26 (4): 461–479

2002· article· en· W2078752052 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
R. J. Bowering

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Water Resources Journal / Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWater Governance and Infrastructure
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlood mythWater resourcesRiver managementWater resource managementHydrology (agriculture)Environmental scienceGeographyEnvironmental resource managementArchaeologyEcologyGeologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

(2002). Comment on 'The Cultures of Flood Management in Canada: Insights from the 1997 Red River Experience' by Dan Shrubsole, Canadian Water Resources Journal 26 (4): 461–479. Canadian Water Resources Journal / Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques: Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 117-118.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.221

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0180.007
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0060.003
Research integrity0.0220.025
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.004

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.182 · 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
GenreCommentary

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
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Water Resources Journal / Revue canadienne des ressources hydriquesSame topicWater Governance and InfrastructureFrench-language works237,207