MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2193028354 · doi:10.2134/agronmonogr41.c34

Reclamation of Pipeline Disturbances

2000· book-chapter· en· W2193028354 on OpenAlexaffabout
A.W. Fedkenheuer

Bibliographic record

VenueAgronomy monograph/Agronomy · 2000
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRangeland and Wildlife Management
Canadian institutionsNova Chemicals (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRevegetationLand reclamationPipeline transportPipeline (software)Environmental scienceTopsoilVegetation (pathology)Process (computing)Environmental resource managementEnvironmental planningCivil engineeringMining engineeringEngineeringEnvironmental engineeringComputer scienceEcologySoil scienceSoil water

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Surface land disturbance accompanies the installation of pipelines and environmental legislation requiring reclamation of areas disturbed during pipeline construction exists in both the USA and Canada. To maximize the benefits of a monitoring program there must be a process in place to ensure that the results of the monitoring effort get put back into the planning and implementation phases of pipelining. The philosophy for pipeline revegetation is generally different from that for mineland revegetation as not as much needs to be done to restore soil and vegetation functions on pipelines. Alleviation of soil compaction either actively or passively, removal of ruts, and re-establishment of surface water flow patterns will remove most of the other difficulties with revegetation of farmland. The Natl. Energy Board has a generally similar approach, but with a couple of variations that provide more flexibility for the applicant to decide the method of handling topsoil.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.006

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations3
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAgronomy monograph/AgronomySame topicRangeland and Wildlife ManagementFrench-language works237,207