MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2556928343 · doi:10.1080/07900627.2016.1251884

Implementing integrated watershed management in Quebec: examples from the Saint John River Watershed Organization

2016· article· en· W2556928343 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Water Resources Development · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Conservation and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWatershedWatershed managementLegislatureContext (archaeology)Government (linguistics)Environmental resource managementEnvironmental planningSAINTBusinessPublic administrationPolitical scienceGeographyEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Water management in the province of Quebec has evolved rapidly in recent years. Public consultation led the provincial government to adopt a Quebec Water Policy in 2002, which was reinforced with the passing of the Quebec Water Act in 2009. This legislative tool enabled the creation of 40 watershed organizations responsible for implementing integrated watershed management (IWM). This article explains the context in which IWM has evolved in the province of Quebec. It also describes the successes, challenges and lessons learned by the Saint John River Watershed Organization in implementing IWM in a transboundary 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.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.673
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.195 · 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