MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3032816185 · doi:10.4095/321104

Progressing toward an understanding of groundwater geochemistry of Innisfil Creek watershed, southern Ontario

2020· report· en· W3032816185 on OpenAlexaffabout
F Proteau-Bédard, Nicolas Benoît, Paul Jean Theo Baudron, Ryan Post, Angela Mills

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil and Water Nutrient Dynamics
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGroundwaterWatershedGeologyGeochemistryHydrology (agriculture)Earth scienceGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Groundwater represents an important source of water for agriculture in the Innisfil Creek watershed, southern Ontario, where water vulnerability issues were evident through recent drought conditions. Uncertainties remain regarding the groundwater flow pattern of the multi-layer aquifer system and further understanding is required to plan for sustainable groundwater use. A hydrogeological study based on geochemistry and isotopes (d2H, d18O, d13C,14C-DIC, and 226Ra) is being developed to better characterize and quantify recharge, regional flow patterns, and potential inter-aquifer flow. In this paper, we present on work completed in 2018. The study objectives were to gather existing hydrogeological and geochemical data into a comprehensive database, to analyse the data in order to support targeted additional water sampling, and to develop preliminary interpretations. The ongoing project is now set for the development of an initial conceptual model based on the geochemical and isotopic interpretations combined with statistical analyses and physical hydrogeology processes observed in the region.

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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.172

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.182 · 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
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoil and Water Nutrient Dynamics→French-language works237,207→