MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2807945806 · doi:10.4236/gep.2018.66002

Integrated Modeling of Soil Erosion for a Canadian Watershed in Response to Projected Changes in Climate and Consequent Adoption of Mitigating Best Management Practices

2018· article· en· W2807945806 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Chengxi Zhang, Gordon Brewster

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geoscience and Environment Protection · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil erosion and sediment transport
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
KeywordsWatershedEnvironmental scienceErosionHydrology (agriculture)PrecipitationUniversal Soil Loss EquationClimate changeLand useBuffer stripAgricultureGeographyGeologySoil lossEcologyMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Controlling soil erosion and the transport and deposition of suspended sediment to receiving waters, especially in relation to the modifying influences of, and interplay between, climate and land-use alterations, is essential for effective watershed management. The Atlantic Canada—New England region is expected to experience elevated rainfall erosivity due to climate change over the next century. Using the projected higher precipitation amounts of 5% and 10% for future scenarios of 5 and 25 years for the region, and a spatially-explicit, integrated (GIS, RUSLE) model for a rural watershed in Nova Scotia, predicted increases in total erosion rates of 4.9 and 9.9%, respectively. Modelled scenarios altering buffer strips based on either consistent or slope-variable widths between 30 m (the legal requirement) to 90 m were found to correspond to reductions in predicted total watershed erosion rates from 11% to 32%. Assuming and extending the 1:1 concordance between projected precipitation and estimated soil erosion for this particular watershed into the more distant future of 26 to 55 years, suggests that the 25% increase in soil erosion predicted over this period would have to be offset by expanding the protective buffer strips to a consistent width of 70 m. Adoption of such a protective management scheme would subsume 19% of the terrestrial area of the study watershed and thus consequent reductions in land available for agricultural production and timber harvest.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.153

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geoscience and Environment ProtectionSame topicSoil erosion and sediment transportFrench-language works237,207