MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4306680376 · doi:10.1002/ird.2763

One hundred years of drainage development in the Holland Marsh, Canada, and implications for long‐term sustainability

2022· article· en· W4306680376 on OpenAlexaffabout
Chandra A. Madramootoo, Naeem Akhtar Abbasi

Bibliographic record

VenueIrrigation and Drainage · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil and Water Nutrient Dynamics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDrainageMarshEnvironmental scienceWater qualitySustainabilityHydrology (agriculture)Water resource managementEutrophicationSwaleWetlandEnvironmental engineeringSurface runoffStormwaterEngineeringEcologyNutrient

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The low‐lying peatlands of the Holland Marsh are intensively cultivated with high‐value vegetable crops, worth some $450 million Canadian annually. This high productivity is due to the fact that there have been significant investments to empolder the marsh, through the construction of dykes, embankments, canals, ditches, tile drainage, and installation of pumping stations. However, attention must be paid to the long‐term environmental sustainability of the Holland Marsh, given the high phosphorus loads and eutrophication in Lake Simcoe, the principal drainage outlet for the agricultural run‐off from the marsh. It is important that non‐point source pollution be reduced and drainage water quality better managed. In addition to agro‐environmental best management practices, adoption of controlled drainage, and improved drainage water pumping strategies are recommended. These could help achieve the P reduction target established by the government of Ontario and the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority.

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.159

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.213 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIrrigation and DrainageSame topicSoil and Water Nutrient DynamicsFrench-language works237,207