MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Target Ecosystem Assessment Model: a process to develop target revegetation prescriptions in the mine closure landscape

2019· article· en· W2970493005 on OpenAlexaff
Barb Logan, Vincent Futoransky, Susann Dietrich, Brittany Flemming, Vivienne Wilson, L. P. Waterman

Bibliographic record

VenueMine closure · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRangeland and Wildlife Management
Canadian institutionsThe Wilson Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRevegetationEnvironmental scienceVegetation (pathology)EcosystemWetlandWater contentHydrology (agriculture)Land reclamationEnvironmental resource managementEcologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Target Ecosystem Assessment Model (TEAM) was developed to provide mine reclamation practitioners with an iterative process to refine final closure reclamation plans. Using the ArcGIS™ platform, it incorporates inputs from multiple sources including soil cover design; topography; hydrology and wetlands; soil nutrient regime and stakeholder inputs to develop revegetation prescriptions for target ecosystems. The model output is used to guide vegetation prescription suitability with an appropriate predicted relative moisture (driest to wettest) regime. To develop the TEAM, various input layers are overlaid sequentially to create unique relative estimated moisture regime areas. Slope position and soil texture are influential factors of moisture regime in areas not directly influenced by the water table. In transitional areas and wetland areas, topographic position and proximity to water and/or water table are more influential to moisture regime predictions. With this information, a range of suitable target revegetation prescriptions can be generated from estimated relative moisture regime derived from the model and nutrient regime derived from the soil cover characteristics (i.e. the soil prescription). The output of the model provides planners with a range of moisture classes tied to specific ecosystems, and the soil and vegetation prescriptions that support them. The TEAM reduces the potential subjectivity of planning by matching ecosystem target options to each unique combination of site conditions, and in doing so, testing for mismatches in site conditions and desired end land uses. The TEAM provides flexibility in creating the target ecosystem layouts, by including stakeholder input for desired end land use and consideration of the complexity and arrangement of ecosystems in the pre-disturbance landscape. This information is used to further delineate areas for specific revegetation prescriptions (targeted vegetation community assemblages). Planners who use the TEAM can be confident in defensible target ecosystem layouts, which are developed using a standard, tested procedure.

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)0.002
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMine closureSame topicRangeland and Wildlife ManagementFrench-language works237,207