MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3198433945 · doi:10.1139/facets-2020-0073

Understanding multifunctional Bay of Fundy dykelands and tidal wetlands using ecosystem services—a baseline

2021· article· en· W3198433945 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Kate Sherren, Kirsten Ellis, Julia Guimond, Barret L. Kurylyk, Nicole K. LeRoux, Jeremy Lundholm, Mark L. Mallory, Danika van Proosdij, Allison K. Walker, Tony Bowron, John C. Brazner, Lisa Kellman, B. L. Turner, Emily Wells

Bibliographic record

VenueFACETS · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCoastal wetland ecosystem dynamics
Canadian institutionsSaint Mary's UniversityCB Wetlands & Environmental SpecialistsSt. Francis Xavier UniversityAcadia UniversityDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEcosystem servicesWetlandBayBaseline (sea)RecreationStorm surgeEnvironmental resource managementAgricultureClimate changeSeagrassGeographyEcosystemCoastal managementEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental protectionFisheryOceanographyEcologyStorm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We review what is known about ecosystem service (ES) delivery from agricultural dykelands and tidal wetlands around the dynamic Bay of Fundy in the face of climate change and sea-level rise, at the outset of the national NSERC ResNet project. Agricultural dykelands are areas of drained tidal wetland that have been converted to agricultural lands and protected using dykes and aboiteaux (one-way drains or sluices), first introduced by early French settlers (Acadians). Today, Nova Scotia’s 242 km system of dykes protect 17,364 ha of increasingly diverse land uses—including residential, industrial, and commercial uses as well as significant tourism, recreational, and cultural amenities—and is undergoing system modernization and adaptation. Different ES are provided by drained and undrained landscapes such as agriculture from dykelands and regulating services from wetlands, but more complex dynamics exist when beneficiaries are differentiated. This review reveals many knowledge gaps about ES delivery and dynamics, including around net greenhouse gas implications, storm protection, water quality, fish stocks, pollination processes, sense of place, and aesthetics, some of which may reveal shared ES or synergies instead of trade-offs. We emphasize the need to be open to adapting ES concepts and categorizations to fully understand Indigenous implications of these land use decisions.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.861
Threshold uncertainty score0.277

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations37
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFACETSSame topicCoastal wetland ecosystem dynamicsFrench-language works237,207