MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2288454639 · doi:10.4141/cjss-2014-113

Using historic soil survey data to map water erosion hazard for land-use planning in Nova Scotia

2015· article· en· W2288454639 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Kevin Keys, Shannon Sterling, Yue Guan

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Soil Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil erosion and sediment transport
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityNova Scotia Department of Agriculture
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNova scotiaSoil surveyHydrology (agriculture)HazardEnvironmental scienceHazard mapErosionWatershedLand useSoil waterGeologySoil scienceGeomorphologyCivil engineeringGeotechnical engineeringEngineeringOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Keys, K., Sterling, S. M. and Guan, Y. 2015. Using historic soil survey data to map water erosion hazard for land-use planning in Nova Scotia. Can. J. Soil Sci. 95: 299–304. A fine-scale digital soil map layer for Nova Scotia was combined with historic soil survey information and digital elevation (DEM) data to generate a new water erosion hazard map based on inherent soil erodibility and slope class. Results showed approximately 62% of Nova Scotia has low erosion hazard, 33% has moderate hazard, and 5% has high hazard. The erosion hazard map was subsequently used in a provincial watershed assessment program (NSWAP) to map potential water quality stressors related to land-use patterns on erodible soils. This work is an example of how historic soil survey data can be utilized to create new information for land-use planning and environmental assessment.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.279
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.028 · 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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Soil ScienceSame topicSoil erosion and sediment transportFrench-language works237,207