MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116662210 · doi:10.1641/b580808

Unintended Consequences of Urbanization for Aquatic Ecosystems: A Case Study from the Arizona Desert

2008· article· en· W2116662210 on OpenAlexaff
W. John Roach, James B. Heffernan, Nancy B. Grimm, J Ramón Arrowsmith, Chris Eisinger, Tyler J. Rychener

Bibliographic record

VenueBioScience · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil and Water Nutrient Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersDivision of Graduate Education
KeywordsPerennial streamEcosystemEphemeral keyAridEnvironmental scienceEcosystem servicesWatershedHydrology (agriculture)UrbanizationRiparian zoneGroundwaterWater resource managementEcologySTREAMSGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many changes wrought during the construction of “designer ecosystems” are intended to ensure—and often succeed in ensuring—that a city can provide ecosystem goods and services; but other changes have unintended impacts on the ecology of the city, impairing its ability to provide these critical functions. Indian Bend Wash, an urbanizing watershed in the Central Arizona–Phoenix (CAP) ecosystem, provides an excellent case study of how human alteration of land cover, stream channel structure, and hydrology affect ecosystem processes, both intentionally and unintentionally. The construction of canals created new flowpaths that cut across historic stream channels, and the creation of artificial lakes produced sinks for fine sediments and hotspots for nitrogen processing. Further hydrologic manipulations, such as groundwater pumping, linked surface flows to the aquifer and replaced ephemeral washes with perennial waters. These alterations of hydrologic structure are typical by-products of urban growth in arid and semiarid regions and create distinct spatial and temporal patterns of nitrogen availability.

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)0.001
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 score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score0.199

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations60
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioScienceSame topicSoil and Water Nutrient DynamicsFrench-language works237,207