Bibliographic record
Abstract
The history of the development and evolution of ecological land classifications that encompass the Canada landmass is outlined in the following: Marshall and P.H. Schut (1999). A national ecological framework for Canada - overview; on-line at http://sis.agr. gc.ca/cansis/nsdb/ecostrat/intro.html [accessed March 9, 2010]. In the late 1960s there was recognition of the need for a nation-wide ecological framework to provide standardized, multi-scale geographical reporting and monitoring units. One aim was to think, act, and plan based on ecosystems rather than have emphasis on individual elements. Ecological land classification incorporates all major components of ecosystems: air, water, land, and biota, including humans. It is based on a hierarchy with ecosystems nested within ecosystems. In 1976 the Canada Committee on Ecological Land Classification was created to develop (1) a uniform national ecological approach to terrestrial ecosystem classification and mapping and (2) to encourage the use of the ecological approach to sustainable resource management and planning. The first version had 7 levels of generalization and from the start there was recognition that the spatial units needed revisions. In 1991 a collaborative project was undertaken after the first State of Environment report for Canada published in 1986 by some federal, provincial and territorial governments. The objective was to revise the previous work and establish a common ecological framework for Canada. The working group focused on 3 levels - ecozones, ecoregions, and ecodistricts - and the result was a national report entitled "A National Ecological ramework for Canada" released in 1996. The report described the methodology used to construct the ecological framework maps, the concepts of the hierarchical levels of generalization, narrative descriptions of each ecozone and ecoregion and their linkages to various data sources. The State of the Environment Reporting spatial framework is maintained by the CanSIS group at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Since 1996, groups in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Nova Scotia have provided more in-depth descriptions of the ecological units in these provinces. The NAFTA Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) made some modifications to the State of the Environment Reporting spatial framework for Canada to provide an integrated perspective for all of North America. Results were released in 1997 as "Ecological Regions of North America - Towards a Common Perspective". When the North America perspective was being developed, an ecoprovince level of generalization, between ecozone and ecoregion, was compiled for the Canadian framework. For Canada, the CANSIS database consists of 15 ecozones, 53 ecoprovinces, 194 ecoregions, and 1021 ecodistricts. For North America, the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) database has the following number of units: Level 1- 15; Level 2 - 52; Level 3 - 182, and Level 4 - not as yet completed. Geochemical data sets that are geo-referenced can be "cookie cut" using any eco-classification system and GIS. The different systems of reporting are similar but not identical and the one being used should be clearly stated. The CanSIS system is widely used in Canada and is recommended for national and regional reporting. The scale or level of data used depends on the project purpose and the amount of data available. If using the more detailed scales of eco-classification information, it is necessary to have sufficient data points within the individual ecosystem polygons to ensure the validity of statistical comparisons.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.009 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".