MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2120930363 · doi:10.1139/x03-146

Progress towards understanding the structure, function, and ecological significance of small stream channels and their riparian zones

2003· article· en· W2120930363 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
R. D. Moore, John S. Richardson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Sediment Transport Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRiparian zoneSTREAMSWatershedConfusionGeographyWildlifeEcologyRiparian forestVegetation (pathology)EcosystemEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental scienceHabitatBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Incomplete knowledge of the ecological functions of small streams and their riparian zones, particularly their roles in larger watershed and landscape contexts, contributes to confusion and debate about the levels of riparian vegetation retention required along small streams for the purpose of protecting aquatic ecosystems, riparian wildlife, and water quality. As a consequence, there are marked differences in riparian forestry practices and management among jurisdictions throughout North America. To aid in resolving these issues, a symposium on small streams and their riparian zones was held at The University of British Columbia from 19 to 21 February 2002, which brought together scientists, managers, and practitioners and provided a forum for the presentation and discussion of emerging research results. This special issue includes a selection of papers presented at that symposium as well as one solicited paper.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.164

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0080.011
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations65
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicHydrology and Sediment Transport ProcessesFrench-language works237,207