MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416390298 · doi:10.3390/d17110797

Ecological Restoration in Laurentian Great Lakes Wetlands: A Literature Review

2025· article· en· W4416390298 on OpenAlexafffund
Dominique Rumball, Scott M. Reid, Nicholas E. Mandrak

Bibliographic record

VenueDiversity · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAquatic Invertebrate Ecology and Behavior
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Natural Resources and Forestry
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsWetlandRestoration ecologyEnvironmental restorationHabitatEcosystemEcosystem servicesLandscape ecologyEcological health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Laurentian Great Lakes basin, the largest surface freshwater ecosystem in the world, is heavily impacted by anthropogenic stressors including wetland degradation and loss. Ecological restoration has been identified as a tool to conserve and manage Great Lakes wetlands where studies undergo planning, action, and evaluation stages. A review of 57 studies (1967–2023) on Great Lakes coastal and inland wetlands was conducted to determine when and where ecological restoration is occurring, what approaches are being taken, and how effective they are. Restoration occurred most in coastal wetlands located in the United States of America and Lake Erie. The most implemented monitoring designs were control-impact and before-after-control-impact designs. A common ecological objective of restoration was altering species composition for invasive species management. Studies targeting changes in biological communities integrated ecological theory well within the three stages of restoration. Variable restoration effectiveness was detected, where a mix of ecological objectives were targeted and monitored through many study designs. Future restoration efforts would benefit from greater financial and monitoring investments (especially during the planning stage), continued integration of ecological theory, development of lake-specific benchmarks to assess restoration success, and a collaborative approach that includes practitioner knowledge and Traditional Ecological Knowledge.

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)0.005
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0090.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.223 · 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
GenreReview

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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiversitySame topicAquatic Invertebrate Ecology and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207