MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2964999834

Drainage Engineering: Can You Put New Wine in an Old Wine Skin?

2018· article· en· W2964999834 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

VenueDrainage Engineers Conference · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil erosion and sediment transport
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDrainageAgency (philosophy)Environmental planningWildlifeBusinessEnvironmental resource managementEngineeringEnvironmental scienceEcologySociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Drainage is essential to agriculture! However, it is a complex task of balancing property owner needs, environmental and societal interests, regulatory compliance and protection of the municipal infrastructure. OMAFRA’s Publication 852 – “A Guide for Engineers working under the Drainage Act in Ontario” is designed to help engineers navigate through these challenges and opportunities. This session will provide an overview of the Guide including the application of the Drainage Act requirements; design components and considerations of the Engineer’s report; and regulatory, policy and agency considerations. It will focus on many of the innovative approaches found in the Guide that can be used to balance drainage with other interests of society such as climate change, fish and wildlife habitat, water quality/quantity, wetlands and water retention.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.771
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.189 · 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