MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4244605712 · doi:10.24124/2017/1402

Factors affecting ecosystem recovery after placer mining in northwestern British Columbia

2017· dissertation· en· W4244605712 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jose Haig

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRangeland and Wildlife Management
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersUniversity of Northern British Columbia
KeywordsEcosystemDisturbance (geology)Environmental scienceSpecies richnessLand reclamationGeographyEcologyGeologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research sought to determine the attributes affecting unassisted ecosystem recovery after placer mining. Ninety post-mining sites in 14 creek drainages east of Atlin Lake, British Columbia, were sampled to represent a range of times since disturbance (9 to 76 years). The six indicators utilized (vascular species richness, plant community similarity to undisturbed reference sites, summed plant cover, structural diversity, A-horizon depth, wildlife activity) exhibited different recovery trajectories and dependencies. Across all six indicators, the factors most important to ecosystem recovery were, in order of importance: time since disturbance, microsite relief, elevation, slope position, and soil texture. Without any reclamation, linear extrapolation indicates that a mean of 101 years would be needed for disturbed sites to return to mean undisturbed conditions. Classification and regression tree analysis identified thresholds of these factors that may promote or hinder recovery. These thresholds were used to refine recommendations for promoting ecosystem recovery after mining.

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)0.002
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 score0.171
Threshold uncertainty score0.343

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.206 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRangeland and Wildlife Management→French-language works237,207→