MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125883636 · doi:10.1139/er-2012-0051

Problems caused by the Three Gorges Dam construction in the Yangtze River basin: a review

2013· review· en· W2125883636 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kaifeng Li, Cheng Zhu, Li Wu, Linyan Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Reviews · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFlood Risk Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersState Key Laboratory of Lake Science and Environment
KeywordsSiltationThree gorgesStructural basinFlood controlWater resource managementEnvironmental scienceSustainable developmentFlood mythDrainage basinHydrology (agriculture)HydropowerWater qualityYangtze riverSedimentGeographyGeologyEcologyChinaGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dam is an important way of water-resources utilization in large rivers. To date, more than 50 000 dams with various sizes have been constructed in the Yangtze River basin, with many other dams proposed to be constructed by 2020. Dam construction has played significant roles in flood control, irrigation, navigation, and energy supply; however, the enormous negative effects, such as landslides, ecological problems, and water quality decline, could surpass positive gains. Although a long and complicated evaluation process had been carried out and the countermeasures for numerous foreseen negative impacts of the Three Gorges Dam (TGD) had been implemented, many uncertainties and debating opinions on the benefits and costs of this project still exist. In this review, we synthesize the negative impacts that have occurred as a result of the TGD, including reservoir-triggered seismicity, landslides, water quality control, ecological problems, siltation, and sediment discharge decline to assure an environmentally friendly operation of the TGD and regional sustainable development in the Yangtze River basin, especially in the Three Gorges Reservoir region.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.278
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations138
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental ReviewsSame topicFlood Risk Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207