MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144300977 · doi:10.1071/mf08119

Thirty years of sediment–water science: history, trends and future directions

2009· article· en· W2144300977 on OpenAlexaff
Ellen L. Petticrew

Bibliographic record

VenueMarine and Freshwater Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHeavy metals in environment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSedimentAquatic ecosystemBiogeochemistryOceanographyEnvironmental scienceEcologyBiologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1976, an interdisciplinary group of international researchers met in Amsterdam to share their knowledge about sediment–water interactions, and subsequently formed the International Association for Sediment Water Science (IASWS). Since then, IASWS has met tri-annually at a variety of locations throughout the world. Over the last 30 years, over 1000 oral presentations have been presented at IASWS symposia, more than half of which have been published as books or special issues of scientific journals. As such, the publications provide an excellent record of developments in the field of sediment–water interactions over the last 30 years. This paper provides an overview of the history of the Association, and a qualitative and quantitative content analysis of the IASWS publications. Changing patterns of research in some of the dominant symposia themes, including sediment-associated nutrients, contaminants and metals as well as sediment dynamics and material cycling are presented. Temporal changes in the investigative scale of published studies and an eventual increase in papers addressing management considerations were observed. Potential directions for the future of IASWS and some directives for ensuring that future research informs aquatic ecosystem health are suggested.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.864
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
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

Citations8
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMarine and Freshwater ResearchSame topicHeavy metals in environmentFrench-language works237,207