MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2303332863 · doi:10.5558/tfc2016-016

Tri-Creeks Experimental Watershed

2016· article· en· W2303332863 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
George Sterling, Amy Goodbrand, Sheena A. Spencer

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaAlberta Environment and Protected Areas
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWatershedEnvironmental scienceRiparian zoneHydrology (agriculture)StreamflowGroundwaterWater resource managementLoggingForest coverWatershed areaCurrent (fluid)FisheryGeographyForestryEcologyCartographyEngineeringHabitatDrainage basinComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tri-Creeks Experimental Watershed was initiated to compare the effects of logging and riparian buffers in three subbasins (Wampus, Deerlick, and Eunice Creeks) and to evaluate the effectiveness of timber harvesting ground rules in protecting fisheries and water resources. The watershed study was terminated in 1985 shortly after the harvest. In 2015, the University of Alberta re-established groundwater monitoring, hydrometric, and meteorological stations in Tri-Creeks Experimental watershed. Future research will utilize the 20-year historic data set and current data to study the the effect of forest cover change on the streamflow regime and fish populations. The objective of this paper is to summarize the novel results and available data from 1965–1987 for the Tri-Creeks Experimental Watershed.

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)0.001
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 score0.918
Threshold uncertainty score0.164

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.217 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Forestry ChronicleSame topicHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207