MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2326079454 · doi:10.1061/40792(173)236

Water Quality Assessment and TMDLs for the Flathead River Headwaters Planning Area, Montana

2005· article· en· W2326079454 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ron Steg, Jason J. Gildea, Kevin Kratt

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Quality and Pollution Assessment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlatheadEnvironmental scienceSiltationWater qualityHydrology (agriculture)HabitatTotal maximum daily loadThreatened speciesClean Water ActSTREAMSWater resource managementSedimentEcologyFish <Actinopterygii>FisheryGeologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Flathead River Headwaters Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Planning Area (TPA) drains approximately 4,369 square miles in northwestern Montana and Canada. Twelve stream segments and one reservoir in the Flathead River Headwaters TPA appeared on Montana's 1996 Clean Water Act section 303(d) list. The listed causes of impairment included flow alteration, other habitat alterations, nutrients, suspended solids, and siltation. Cold-water fish and aquatic life were the beneficial uses listed as impaired or threatened. Available data and information were reviewed and compiled and used to assess current use impairment status. A suite of targets and supplemental indicators were developed to address the lack of numeric water quality standards, to evaluate "natural" conditions, and to assess the complex interrelationship between water chemistry, physical habitat, and biology. Restoration and follow-up monitoring plans were developed for all waters determined to be impaired.

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 score0.779
Threshold uncertainty score0.444

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.269 · 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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWater Quality and Pollution AssessmentFrench-language works237,207