MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2981727057 · doi:10.4095/299760

Karst and hazards lands Mitigation: some guidelines for geological and geotechnical investigations in Ontario karst terrains

2017· report· en· W2981727057 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
F R Brunton

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKarstGeologyTerrainGeologic hazardsMining engineeringGeotechnical engineeringLandslideGeographyCartographyPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The mandate of the Ontario Geological Survey is to provide citizens and institutions of Ontario with accurate and objective earth science knowledge about Ontario, in order to sustain and support quality of life, economic prosperity, environmental quality, and public health and safety. The OGS does not comment on best practices or recommended approaches for reviewing and approving changes to landuse or development applications in karst terrains. Various Ontario ministries - the Ontario Geological Survey (MNDM) and the Ministry of Natural Resources & Forestry (MNRF), Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH), and Agriculture and Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) have been reviewing existing policies related to land-use and development throughout southern Ontario and Manitoulin Island to update hazard lands guidelines, nutrient management practices and to develop best practices documents for various forms of development in karst terrains. The main purpose of the Ontario Geological Survey Karst Mitigation field-based research is to provide a more comprehensive summary of the kinds of geoscience field work and data sets that could be integrated into field-based studies in order to address gaps in the current guidelines framework (e.g., Natural Hazards Technical Guidance documents for use with the current Ontario Provincial Policy Statement). A "best practices" approach to addressing karst hazards should be carried out in a staged manner, one that involves a general geologic- and geomorphologic-data-gathering desktop investigation (Phase 1 study) that would progress to a more detailed field-based study (Phase 2) to quantify and qualify identified karst terrain hazards (i.e., progress from Phase 1- to Phase 2-level site investigation depending upon nature of land use or development project being proposed). An overview of proposed best practices for investigating karst hazards in Ontario and an innovative "toolkit" for investigating karst-influenced groundwater flow zones will be reviewed in this presentation.

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)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.492

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0120.016
Science and technology studies0.0080.009
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0090.004
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.003

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.243 · 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
GenreMethods

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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLandslides and related hazards→French-language works237,207→