MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

We All Live Downstream (and Upstream)

2003· article· en· W2528956963 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nancy N. Rabalais

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Soil and Water Conservation · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEnvironmental Justice and Health Disparities
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDownstream (manufacturing)EstuaryEnvironmental scienceBayUpstream (networking)Deposition (geology)OceanographyEnvironmental protectionGeographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most U.S. citizens would respond positively to the question “Are you concerned about having a healthy environment in which to live?” The proportion of positive responses grows smaller as the questions shift to “Are you responsible for the quality of the environment in which you live? OR “Are you willing to change your behaviors in order to achieve a healthy environment?” The realization that many of our actions affect not only our immediate environment but also environments far away from the source of the offending pollutant is not a commonly held understanding. In many ways, we ALL live downstream from the polluting nature of our fellow world co-inhabitants and upstream of our inputs.Acid rain falling on the northeastern United States and Canadian lakes and forests has its origin hundreds of miles upstream (as the crow flies) at the coal-and fossil-fuel burning plants of the Ohio River Valley. As much as 10 to 40 percent of the loading of nitrogen to estuarine and coastal waters around the world comes from atmospheric deposition—Baltic Sea, Kiel Bight, North Sea, Long Island Sound, New York Bight, Chesapeake Bay, Pamlico

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.139

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0420.009

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations1
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Soil and Water ConservationSame topicEnvironmental Justice and Health DisparitiesFrench-language works237,207