MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3122852106

Cleaning Up after the Log Drivers' Waltz: Finding the Ottawa River Watershed

2010· article· en· W3122852106 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jamie Benidickson

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFrench Urban and Social Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWatershedForestryPolitical scienceHumanitiesWater resource managementGeographyEnvironmental scienceArt
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Ottawa River has experienced the environmental impact of a succession of industrial uses from the lumber trade through hydroelectric power development to pulp and paper manufacturing. Each of these activities, and the introduction of substantial discharges of urban wastewater, has been the subject of legal intervention and regulatory controls. The present paper surveys this largely sectoral approach to water quality protection along the Ottawa River and notes in conclusion tentative steps being taken to formulate a more comprehensive and coherent framework on a watershed basis.Qu’il s’agisse du commerce du bois, de l’hydroelectricite ou des manufactures de pâtes et papiers, les activites industrielles menees sur la riviere des Outaouais ont toutes eu des impacts environnementaux. Chacune de ces activites, de meme que le rejet des eaux usees dans la riviere, a fait l’objet de controles juridiques et reglementaires. Dans cet article, l’auteur analyse l’approche sectorielle ayant prevalu en matiere de protection de la qualite de l’eau et il note, en conclusion, certaines tentatives recentes visant a instaurer un cadre global et coherent, qui tiendrait compte des bassins versants. (Article seulement disponible en anglais.)

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)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.179
Threshold uncertainty score0.361

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0060.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.230 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic Journal→Same topicFrench Urban and Social Studies→French-language works237,207→