MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096365878 · doi:10.5539/jsd.v7n4p225

Mitigation Banks and Other Conservation Lands at Risk from Preferential Groundwater Flow and Hydroperiod Alterations by Existing and Proposed Northeast Florida Mines

2014· article· en· W2096365878 on OpenAlex
Sérgio Bernardes, Jiaying He, Sydney T. Bacchus, Marguerite Madden, Thomas Jordan

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sustainable Development · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Quality and Resources Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJohns Hopkins UniversityUniversity of GeorgiaU.S. Army Corps of EngineersFlorida Department of TransportationU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
KeywordsWetlandKarstGroundwaterAquiferEnvironmental scienceGroundwater flowWater resource managementNatural (archaeology)Hydrology (agriculture)Vegetation (pathology)Mining engineeringGeologyGeographyEcologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When evaluating applications for proposed projects, agencies in the United States (U.S.) must consider mitigation options for the destruction of the aquatic environment such as wetlands, if no practicable alternative to the proposed action exists. Because attempts to create artificial wetlands as replacements for natural wetlands that were destroyed have had little success, particularly in the case of forested wetlands, mitigation options often include mitigation banks and conservation restrictions as permit requirements. In Florida, agencies issuing permits for projects involving groundwater alterations such as withdrawals from wells and mining, do not require an analysis of how on-site and off-site wetlands designated as mitigation, conservation or preservation for destroyed wetlands would be affected by fractures and other karst features that occur throughout the Floridan aquifer system (FAS). This study analyzed the underlying geological conditions in the FAS using lineaments as surface expressions of those conditions, in addition to indicators of preferential groundwater flow in an environmentally sensitive karst area of northeast Florida, including Baker and Clay Counties, where extensive mining has occurred in the recent past and more extensive mining is proposed in the immediate future. Established methods, such as spatial matching of scanned maps and remotely sensed images and control-point identification, were used for georectification of the analog maps. These techniques were applied to surface expressions of underlying fractures that were mapped in the early 1950s and 1970s, prior to extensive groundwater extractions, urbanization and mining in the region. The vegetation changes and reduced groundwater discharges from those alterations reduce the ability to identify fractures from post-development images. Geospatial analyses of lineament distribution revealed that the study area and surrounding counties included a dense network of lineaments, including through existing and proposed mines, mitigation banks and other conservation lands. Excavation, water use and operation of proposed mines associated with those fractures could result in irreversible adverse environmental impacts to those mitigation banks and other conservation lands linked by the network of fractures. To ensure sustainable developments and compliance with mitigation laws in this highly fractured area, adverse impacts to mitigation banks and other conservation lands from groundwater pumping and mining via fractures must be considered.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.146
Threshold uncertainty score0.396

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.201
Teacher spread0.185 · 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