MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2290787492 · doi:10.5539/jsd.v9n1p245

A Review and Discussion on Modeling and Assessing Agricultural Best Management Practices under Global Climate Change

2016· review· en· W2290787492 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Yongbo Liu, Wanhong Yang, Cheng‐Zhi Qin, A‐Xing Zhu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sustainable Development · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
KeywordsClimate changeWatershedEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental resource managementWatershed managementAgricultureWater cycleNonpoint source pollutionWater resource managementGlobal warmingEnvironmental planningWater resourcesGeographyComputer scienceEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>Understanding the impacts of global climate change on the spatiotemporal pattern of hydrologic cycle and water resources is of major importance in highly developed watersheds all over the world. These impacts are strongly dependent on related changes in intensity and frequency of extreme climate events. Implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) and policy approaches at watershed and regional scales is essential for mitigating their negative impacts on soil and water conservation, and sustainable economic development. However, the uncertainty of BMP effectiveness including increasing variability of future water supply and changing magnitudes of nonpoint source pollution has to be accounted for in watershed planning and management. This paper provides a review and discussion on the impacts of global climate change on BMP’s hydrologic performance, the current progress on hydrologic assessment of BMPs, as well as the existing problems and countermeasures. Research challenges and opportunities in the field of hydrologic assessment of BMPs under global climate change are also discussed in this paper.</p>

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.944
Threshold uncertainty score0.638

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sustainable DevelopmentSame topicHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207