Strategies for Protecting and Restoring Rhode Island's Watersheds on Multiple Scales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Clean Water Act has traditionally preserved the quality and quantity of a region's water by focusing resources on areas with known or anticipated problems. USEPA Region 1 is taking the supplemental, longer-range approach of protecting areas of New England where natural resources are still healthy. As part of Region 1 's “New England Resource Protection” approach, stakeholders participate in an open process that identifies healthy ecosystems and characterizes how well they support aquatic life and human health. Since the concerns of stakeholders are usually local, the process also displays areas of nonattainment within individual watersheds and determines their likely causes. One of the most powerful ways to display these types of information on multiple scales is to use a geographic information system (GIS). The case of phosphorus in southern Rhode Island's Tucker Pond illustrates how a GIS can help integrate concerns from the public, data from Clean Water Act monitoring, and information from the New England Resource Protection Project to identify types of environmental assessment questions on scales ranging from states to subwatersheds. By involving the public at all stages of the process and better informing them about their watersheds, this new approach makes them better stewards of their environment.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".