Répartition verticale des communautés de plantes aquatiques en fonction des variations des niveaux d'eau du Saint-Laurent
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ce rapport decrit les resultats et la methodologie d’echantillonnage de 15 milieux humides du Saint-Laurent (entre Cornwall et le Lac Saint-Pierre) qui ont fait l’objet d’etudes en 1999, 2000, 2001 et 2002. Les bas niveaux extremes observes en 1999 et 2001 ont donne lieu a de fortes variations des communautes de plantes, dont on a tire profit dans l’analyse. Les resultats identifient six communautes de plantes situees entre les milieux plus « terrestres » (prairie humide) et les plus « aquatiques » (herbier submerge), constituant la frange de vegetation la plus sensible aux variations de niveau. Les communautes de plantes ont ensuite ete liees quantitativement aux differentes variables hydrologiques determinant leur presence, permettant de modeliser leur abondance et leur distribution, qui representent des habitats importants des especes animales. Enfin, ces connaissances permettront d’evaluer les effets environnementaux de differents scenarios de regularisation des debits sortants du Lac Ontario vers le Saint-Laurent. This report describes the results and sampling methodology of 15 St. Lawrence River wetlands (between Cornwall and Lake St. Pierre), which were surveyed in 1999, 2000 and 2001. Extreme low water levels recorded in 1999 and 2001 generated strong variations in wetlands plant communities, which were highlighted in the analyses. Results identify 6 plant communities located between the most « terrestrial » (wet meadow) to the most « aquatic » (submerged aquatic vegetation), which constitute the wetland fringe most susceptible to water level variations. Plant communities were then quantitatively linked to the different hydrologic variables determining their occurrence. These information allow to model the abundance and spatial distribution of the major plant communities comprised in wetlands, which represent key habitats for different faunal groups. This will lead to the assessment of the environmental effects of different water level scenarios resulting from the management of Lake Ontario water outflow into the St. Lawrence.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".