MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2949169007 · doi:10.5203/pmuser.201841620

Impact of Drainage Ditch Construction and Subsequent Use on a Treed Bog Adjacent to a Peat Harvesting Operation, Southwestern Manitoba, Canada

2018· article· en· W2949169007 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Lindsay M. Edwards, Pete Whittington

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPeatlands and Wetlands Ecology
Canadian institutionsBrandon University
FundersCanadian Sphagnum Peat Moss Association
KeywordsDitchBogPeatDrainageWater tableHydrology (agriculture)Vegetation (pathology)BermWetlandEnvironmental scienceTransectOmbrotrophicGeologyGroundwaterEcologyGeographyArchaeologyGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Manitoba has the most peatland by provincial area of any province in Canada, and contributes ~13% of Canada’s horticultural peatland production. Peat harvesting requires the lowering of the water table; this water is usually channeled to a fluvial system (e.g., a river) but in some cased must be actively pumped. In the case of the South Julius bog in Manitoba, the pumped discharge was through a treed bog. The trees in the bog on one side of the drainage ditch were dead, but on the other side were alive. This study investigated possible hydrological causes by instrumenting three transects of wells that ran perpendicular to the drainage ditch and extended 20 and 50 m into the bog on the dead and live side, respectively. Average water tables on the live side were 15 cm lower than the dead side. The dead side water levels were similar to a natural fen located adjacent to the treed bog. Construction of the drainage ditch yielded a >20 cm high berm that ran alongside the live side, functionally isolating the live side from the surplus water in the drainage ditch, maintaining the lower and healthier water table treed bog vegetation requires. We recommend that future drainage ditches be constructed in such a way that berms on both sides are made, functionally creating a canal to the fen, where the excess water can be more easily dealt with by the fen vegetation adapted to wetter average conditions.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.164

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPeatlands and Wetlands Ecology→French-language works237,207→