MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132248083 · doi:10.1186/2193-1801-3-702

Land cover transformation in two post-mining landscapes subjected to different ages of reclamation since dumping of spoils

2014· review· en· W2132248083 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSpringerPlus · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLand Use and Ecosystem Services
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLand reclamationVegetation (pathology)Land coverEcological successionLand useDetrended correspondence analysisPhysical geographyOrdinationEnvironmental scienceGeographyEcologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Transformation of natural land cover (LC) into modified LC has become inevitable due to growing human needs. Nevertheless, landscape transformational patterns during reclamation of mine damaged lands remain vague. Our hypothesis was that post-mining landscapes with different ages since dumping become more diverse in LC transformation over time. The aim was to study the impact of landscape reclamation on land cover changes (LCC) in two post-mining landscapes. Land cover maps of 1988, 1991, 1995, 1998, 2000 and 2003 were produced from LANDSAT TM images of Schlabendorf Nord and Schlabendorf Süd and used to survey the changing landscape. Change detection extension was used to identify changes among land cover types (LCTs). Detrended correspondence analyses (DCA) ordination technique (CANOCO) aided study of similarity among LC distribution. Soil pH analysis was carried out to study effect of soil and climate conditions on LCC. The results show that visible patterns of increase and decrease in the LCTs occurred in both landscapes. Given two post-mining landscapes subjected to different ages of reclamation, clear differences in vegetation growth and LCC pattern would occur. At early stages of restoration, LCTs often have unstable conditions and experience more acute transformation depending on the level of land use intensity in space and time. LCCs were mostly due to progressive and reversed succession. Due to variation in post-mining landscape soil conditions, soil treatment during reclamation should be site specific. The comparative analysis of LCCs in Schlabendorf provides a framework for prioritizing land use planning options for sustainable management of post-mining landscapes in temperate ecosystems.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.870
Threshold uncertainty score0.651

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.261 · 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