MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Protecting Resources on Federal Lands: Implications of Critical Loads for Atmospheric Deposition of Nitrogen and Sulfur

2005· article· en· W2174802474 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ellen Porter, Tamara Blett, Deborah Ulinski Potter, Cindy M. Huber

Bibliographic record

VenueBioScience · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil and Water Nutrient Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Park Service
KeywordsCritical loadEcosystemEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental scienceResource (disambiguation)Natural resource economicsNatural resourceBusinessAir quality indexEnvironmental protectionEnvironmental planningEcologyEngineeringEconomicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Critical loads are a potentially important tool for protecting ecosystems from atmospheric deposition and for promoting recovery. Exceeding critical loads for nitrogen and sulfur can cause ecosystem acidification, nitrogen saturation, and biotic community changes. Critical loads are widely used to set policy for resource protection in Europe and Canada, yet the United States has no similar national strategy. We believe that ecosystem science and resource protection policies are sufficiently advanced in the United States to establish critical loads for federal lands. Communication and interaction between federal area managers and scientists will ensure that critical loads are useful for assessing ecosystem conditions, influencing land management decisions, and informing the public about the status of natural resources. Critical loads may also be used to inform air pollution policy in the United States, regardless of whether critical loads are directly linked to air quality regulations and emissions reductions agreements, as they are in Europe.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.143
Threshold uncertainty score0.284

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations109
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioScienceSame topicSoil and Water Nutrient DynamicsFrench-language works237,207