MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2990100691 · doi:10.22621/cfn.v133i2.2159

Duckling mortality at a river weir

2019· article· en· W2990100691 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Stewart B. Rood, Amber Willcocks

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Field-Naturalist · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFlood Risk Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
FundersAlberta InnovatesAlberta Environment and ParksUniversity of Lethbridge
KeywordsWeirWaterfowlHazardBroodHydrology (agriculture)Environmental scienceFisheryGeographyHead (geology)GeologyEcologyHabitatGeotechnical engineeringCartographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

River weirs are low-head dams that dissipate energy by creating hydraulic recirculation zones at their base. These recirculation zones are a major cause of human drownings and have been referred to as “drowning machines”. We observed an event that allowed us to add ducklings to the list of weir victims. As a Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) hen and her brood floated over the Calgary weir, the mother flew safely over the hydraulic recirculation. The ducklings drifted into the recirculation and three quickly passed through; four were stalled, repeatedly recirculated, and died. We observed other regional weirs where adult birds commonly flew over the hazard. We did not observe any other waterfowl drifting into recirculation zones, and we found no prior report of this lethal hazard. Although mortality might be rare at each weir, with hundreds of thousands of low-head dams worldwide, the collective hazard could be substantial. Weirs can be designed to eliminate the lethal recirculation zone, and the apparent hazard to ducklings could provide another motivation to redesign or modify these common structures.

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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.219 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Field-NaturalistSame topicFlood Risk Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207