Where Have All the Aboiteaux Gone? Mapping Burried Historic Drainage Systems in New Brunswick, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The provincial government of New Brunswick Canada has undertaken the task of rehabilitating historic agricultural marsh lands along the shores of the Petitcodiac River. Since this proposed undertaking will negatively impact shoreline indigenous soils, provincial regulations triggered an archaeological resources assessment. One component of the archaeological program conducted by AMEC was an EM31-SH survey of the proposed shoreline impact areas. Spatial reference was recorded using a Trimble AG114 Global Positioning System (GPS). The principal archaeological objective of the EM31-SH survey was to identify potential subsurface prehistoric and historic archaeological resources. Historically, since the 17th century, the shoreline marshes of the Petitcodiac River have been utilized for agricultural purposes; using a system of dykes (berms) and aboiteaux (drainage structures including oneway valves) that allow water to drain from the marsh while preventing river tidal waters from flooding the marsh. The construction of dykes and aboiteaux in the 1950s “eliminated” any preexisting historical structures. Thus, while there remains physical remnants of the mid-19th century drainage system, there is little surficial evidence of the preexisting historical systems, Identifying the locations of the both potential prehistoric and historic archaeological features using traditional archaeological testing methods would have been both expensive and time consuming given the large area. The use of the EM31-SH and with GIS data analysis, in addition to geotechnical testing and excavation monitoring (ground truthing) was proposed as an alternative. Four parallel transects were walked with the EM31-SH along the Petitcodiac River, covering the project impact area. The data were interpolated to produce raster data coverage's using Geosoft. In addition, two test areas with known subsurface historical structural features were surveyed to serve as a baseline. Spatial analysis utilizing GIS was performed to pick possible targets for further archaeological investigation. Various high pass filters were employed in an effort to sharpen possible features. In addition, various stretches were employed for better visualization of the data. The most effective for visualization was three standard deviations with a bilinear or cubic convolution resampling (for continuous data). The statistics used for display, stretch and resampling, were derived from the present display scale to provide better visualization at varying scales. This enabled the identification of localized anomalies at large scales that were not identifiable using the entirety of the data for representation. The initial ground truthing of a single segment with 12 targets resulted in the identification of two pre 19th century aboiteaux features (106–119 millisiemens per meter [mS/M] and 185–204 mS/M) and a 1950s era aboiteau feature (23–30 mS/M). The 1950s era aboiteau accounted for two adjacent targets. Each of the three features is distinguished by different EM signatures both in their range of return values and in their shape size and pattern of response.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".