MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2080698017 · doi:10.1051/tsm/200906086

Le bassin de retenue du parc de Bourran : vers une réhabilitation concertée et durable

2009· article· fr· W2080698017 on OpenAlexaff
Chrysoula Lazou, F. Gross

Bibliographic record

VenueTechniques Sciences Méthodes · 2009
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFrench Urban and Social Studies
Canadian institutionsGDG Environnement
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le bassin de retenue a plan d’eau permanent de Bourran est situe a l’interieur d’un parc paysager ouvert au public.En 2007, un diagnostic sur l’etat des berges et des digues de l’ouvrage a montre des desordres importants, resultant notamment de la forte frequentation du site, de l’inadequation de certaines pratiques d’entretien de la vegetation et de ruissellements non canalises. Pour retablir l’integrite du bassin, d’importants travaux ont ete entrepris en 2008 par la communaute urbaine de Bordeaux (CUB), Lyonnaise des Eaux et la ville de Merignac. Des techniques de genie vegetal ont ete mises en oeuvre afin de preserver l’environnement et l’esthetique du site. Ces travaux ont ete accompagnes de la definition d’un plan de gestion du site visant a assurer leur perennite.Par ailleurs, le plan d’eau presente un etat sanitaire mediocre qui se traduit par une eau tres turbide, des odeurs nauseabondes, des mortalites piscicoles et un envasement important. A ce jour, aucune des actions deja menees sur le site n’a permis d’ameliorer durablement l’equilibre du plan d’eau : curage partiel, epandage de craie, aerateurs de surface. Un nouvel essai reposant sur l’oxygenation du fond du bassin par un reseau de tuyau Bulle est en cours depuis septembre 2008.

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score0.166

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.002

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTechniques Sciences MéthodesSame topicFrench Urban and Social StudiesFrench-language works237,207