MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3213776907 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14657079.v1

An evaluation of British Columbia's medications return program as a management framework for collecting unused/expired pharmaceuticals

2021· preprint· en· W3213776907 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Muhammad Asif Mahmood

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Quality and Resources Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhosphorusRecreationEnvironmental scienceManagement strategyHydrology (agriculture)Environmental engineeringEnvironmental protectionWater resource managementEcologyBusinessEngineeringBiologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lake Simcoe is a major source of fresh water supply and serves as a favorite hub for recreational activities in southern Ontario. The cold water aquatic life of this Lake is facing serious threats due to depleted levels of oxygen caused by excessive growth of algal plants. The major reason for this growth is the entrance of high phosphorus loads through heavy stream discharges in the months of January until April. The results of analysis of phosphorus concentration and flows conducted in this project shows a direct dependence of phosphorus load on flow. Although the relation of rainfall and phosphorus load could not be supported by strong statistical evidence, the flow variations have been shown to be the major cause of variations in phosphorus load. The control strategies should be focused on reducing the generation of phosphorus at source level and preventing the direct entry of heavy flushes in the lake though Best Management Practices (BMPs), including detention facilities.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.371

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.150
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWater Quality and Resources StudiesFrench-language works237,207