Assessing the Role of a Limestone Quarry as Sediment Source in a Developing Tropical Catchment
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Impact assessments on river systems of the combined effect of bed and suspended sediment loads from quarries are difficult to find. In this study, bed and suspended loads were measured to determine the impact of a 20‐ha limestone quarry on the river system of its 5,000‐ha steep, diverse land use/land cover but mostly forested catchment. A network of hydrologic and sediment monitoring instruments was deployed over the catchment during two separate study periods when sediment loadings were measured from captured storms. Results showed that the quarry stood to make a disproportionately large contribution to the catchment's estimated 2·1 Mg ha −1 yr −1 suspended sediment load. Large storm events contributed most of the loadings with five events supplying 92% of total loadings at the outlet. A paired method approach to compare suspended sediment loads between two subcatchments showed that during eight storm events, the quarry yielded between 2 and 49·2 Mg ha −1 per event, whereas the forest never yielded more than 0·1 Mg ha −1 . Furthermore, the contribution of sediments from the quarry to bed load was more than 75% at a section located 1·2 km downstream. Future management activities to reduce sediment and bed loads, not only from this catchment but also from all others with similar land use/land covers, should focus on improving quarry operations. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it