Blue Carbon in the Comox Valley: monetizing the benefits of eelgrass habitat restoration in coastal British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The restoration of eelgrass and salt marsh beds in areas where they formerly existed is widely recognized as a valuable activity due to their importance as habitat for estuarine inhabitants and for foreshore resilience. These restoration activities can also play a role in sequestering carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and putting it into long-term storage. Blue Carbon, where aquatic plants act to store carbon in the sediments and biomass, is another benefit to eelgrass and salt marsh rehabilitation. The Blue Carbon Team, consisting of professional and volunteer members located in the Comox Valley on Vancouver Island, British Columbia, is pursuing the opportunity to develop a protocol for measuring the amount of carbon permanently sequestered by eelgrass and salt marsh, while at the same time restoring habitat that had been lost during the past 75 years due to urbanization of the area. Preliminary data suggests estuarine plant communities can remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and store it in sediments and biomass more efficiently than land plants. Thus, these habitat restoration efforts would additionally contribute towards mitigating climate change and could be used as carbon credits to monetize further habitat restoration.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".