MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2915455154 · doi:10.2172/942117

Shillapoo Wildlife Area, Annual Report 2004-2005.

2004· report· en· W2915455154 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Brian Calkins

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Conservation and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWildlifeWetlandSetbackUnit (ring theory)Fiscal yearWork (physics)GeographyVegetation (pathology)FisheryEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental protectionEngineeringEcologyBusinessCivil engineeringBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This report summarizes accomplishments, challenges and successes on WDFW's Shillapoo Wildlife Area funded under Bonneville Power Administration's (BPA) Wildlife Mitigation Program (BPA project No.2003-012-00) during the Fiscal Year 05 contract period October 1, 2004-September 30, 2005. The information presented here is intended to supplement that contained in BPA's PISCES contract development and reporting system. The organization below is by broad categories of work but references are made to individual work elements in the PISCES Statement of Work as appropriate. The greatest success realized during this contract period was completion of the water system that will provide water to wetland basins within the Vancouver Lake Unit and three independent basins on adjoining Clark County owned lands. The water system paid for by Clark Public Utilities was designed and built under the direction of Ducks Unlimited. Having a reliable water supply for these areas has allowed us for the first time to begin making significant progress toward our wetland vegetation management goals on this unit. A reduction in the density of reed canary grass has already been noted and increased levels of native plant occurrence have been observed. Our most notable setback was an increase in the infestation of purple loosestrife within a portion of the Shillapoo Lakebed including parts of the North and South Units. A great deal of effort and time was spent on addressing the problem including hand cutting and spraying individual plants.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.323
Threshold uncertainty score0.643

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0260.011

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.231 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEnvironmental Conservation and ManagementFrench-language works237,207