MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Reply on RC2

2025· peer-review· en· W4413072472 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yassine Boukhari

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepeer-review
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicClinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. With denudation rates locally exceeding one centimetre of fresh marl per year, i.e., more than 250 T.ha−1.yr−1, the badlands of the Durance basin in the French Alps makes it one of the world’s most heavily eroding areas. Since 1983, the Draix-Bléone Observatory has been using hydro-sedimentary stations to instrument several of these small, unmanaged badland catchments, where the hydrological response to seasonal storms is rapid and intense. We combine such chronicles at the outlet of the Laval basin (86 ha) with a six-year diachronic analysis of airborne and UAV LiDAR data and a bulk density modelling to map mass movements and constrain a catchment-scale mass balance. We find out that landslides and crests failures represents very active areas, accounting for at least 15 % of the sediment budget of the watershed, while affecting only 1 % of the bare surfaces. They contribute to making the low drainage areas the places with highest erosion rates, reaching as much as two centimetres of fresh marl per year, 3.5 times more than the average value on denuded slopes. Despite some methodological constraints, our approach seams very promising at quantifying and localising the erosion hotspots as well as assessing sediment transport through critical zone compartments, and could be adapted to time series for monitoring the dynamics of badland catchments in a changing climate.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.187
Threshold uncertainty score0.626

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0230.021
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1870.156

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.335 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicClinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology→French-language works237,207→