MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2211896179 · doi:10.2495/hy020411

Ontario Flow Assessment Techniques (OFAT)

2002· article· en· W2211896179 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
C. Chang, F. Ashenhurst, Steve Damaia, William B. Mann

Bibliographic record

VenueWIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWatershedChristian ministryGeographic information systemFlood mythOperations researchComputer scienceHydrology (agriculture)Environmental scienceGeographyCartographyGeologyEngineeringMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Ontario Flow Assessment Techniques (OFAT), currently being developed by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), Canada, is a tool to automatically estimate flow information for watersheds in Ontario. OFAT is a user-friendly, interactive Geographic Information System (GIS)-based software with an accompanying database used to estimate various flow regimes. These flow regimes include low flows, flood flows, mean annual flows, minimum instream flow requirements, and bankfull flows. OFAT has been created by automating a number of existing regional hydrologic models for Ontario, with the support of GIS to provide various physiographic and climatic inputs to the models. OFAT is a usefhl tool that effectively and efficiently manages spatial watershed databases and performs hydrologic analyses to support decisions related to water resources plaming and management. Although OFAT has been designed specifically for watersheds in the province of Ontario, Canada, the ideaslconcepts of OFAT can be applied to elsewhere in the world.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.530
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.176 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations1
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWIT Transactions on Ecology and the EnvironmentSame topicHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207