Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Mud Bay, British Columbia study site is located on eastern shores of Mud Bay, south of the Serpentine River, west of the King George & 99 highways, and north of the Nicomekl River in the Vancouver suburb of Surrey. The site consists of approximately 400 hectares of land. The site is bordered by a growing community on Panama Ridge to the north and Crescent Beach to the south who are exploring the study area. The site is also a rich biologically productive area that lies on the Pacific Flyway route for migratory birds. With the increasing population and the rich ecological significance of the site, it seems natural to explore the possibilities for a greenway on the site. This is further proven when looking at a map. One notices that Mud Bay sits as a greenway gap in Boundary Bay. To the east is the Boundary Bay Park Network, and to the south is Crescent Beach. If Mud Bay were to become a greenway, then one could potentially follow the Boundary Bay shore and walk from Blaine to Point Roberts USA and would form part of a border to border trail. Currently, when one reaches Mud Bay, one must leave the shore and travel far inland to regain the waterside trail. A Mud Bay greenway would fill in the gap for a greenway corridor along Boundary Bay. A Mud Bay greenway would also fill in the gap that the Serpentine Fen Nature Reserve has with Mud Bay. Currently, the Serpentine Fen Nature Reserve is separated from the Bay. With the creation of a Mud Bay greenway that is designed for the sensitive habitat, Serpentine Fen would be better connected with the bay and it would help maintain the site as important feeding and resting ground along the Pacific Flyway. These are the issues and factors that were considered in the project. The project developed a greenway that is sensitive to wildlife while allowing for recreation to take place within it. The greenway design is structured so that it can be implemented over a period of time to form the final design.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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.
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".