MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W213992842

Environmental Assessment for the Construction and Operation of a New Shoppette/Gas Station, Class Six Store, and Name-Brand Fast Food Store at Joint Base Andrews Camp Springs, Prince George's County, Maryland

2010· article· en· W213992842 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Richard Stephens, Ryan A. Long, Gene Stillman, William Huber, Annie Menon, Gina Edwards

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental and Social Impact Assessments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRevenueEngineeringAction planRecreationJoint (building)Transport engineeringCivil engineeringBusinessManagementEconomicsFinanceLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract : AAFES proposes to construct and operate a new shoppette/gas station, Class Six store, and name-brand fast food facility for use by authorized patrons at Joint Base Andrews (formerly Andrews Air Force Base), Prince George's County, Maryland. The Proposed Action complies with the Andrews Air Force Base General Plan and utilizes a site that has previously been developed. The existing AAFES shoppette is outdated and unable to meet customer demand. Additionally, it cannot be updated to meet current building code and energy efficiency standards. The Proposed Action is construction of new facilities that would enhance customer services on the Base and would provide AAFES and the Joint Base Andrews Morale Welfare and Recreation program with additional revenue. Under the No Action Alternative, AAFES would not construct the new facilities and Joint Base Andrews patrons would continue to utilize outdated facilities that have exceeded their useful life and are presently unable to meet customer demand. This EA evaluates the Preferred Alternative and the No Action Alternative. Resources evaluated in this EA include: land use; socioeconomics and environmental justice; transportation; infrastructure and utilities; topography, geology, and soils; water resources; biological resources; cultural resources air quality; noise; hazardous materials and waste, and safety and occupational health . No significant impacts would result from the implementation of the Proposed Action at the preferred site location or from the No Action Alternative.

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 score0.126
Threshold uncertainty score0.251

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEnvironmental and Social Impact Assessments→French-language works237,207→