MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W576784343

Using landscape ecology to inform the recreational design of the Milton Limestone Quarry

2007· book· en· W576784343 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mark A. Taylor

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Atrium (University of Guelph) · 2007
Typebook
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRangeland and Wildlife Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecreationEcologyGeographyLandscape designArchaeologyEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental scienceBiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Located on the Niagara Escarpment at the edge of Milton Ontario, the decommissioned Milton Limestone Quarry provides an opportunity to test landscape ecology principles for rehabilitation of the land and inclusion of diverse objectives like recreation. A conceptual rehabilitation masterplan for the site is developed using a structured site analysis and designing utilizing landscape ecology principles. The themes discussed reflect the municipal owners' needs, focusing on recreation, and incorporating elements such as trails and landscape patches that are contiguous with neighbouring sections of the Niagara Escarpment. Feedback on the design used assessment of experts from Conservation Halton. A questionnaire and general discussion was administered utilizing spatial response scales and written responses to collect data. The results, reinforced by experts, suggest how landscape ecological principles such as 'aggregate-with-outliers' may be used to inform rehabilitation design at multiple scales and with a diverse range objectives. 'Keywords'. landscape ecology, quarry rehabilitation, landscape design, expert assessment

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.194 · 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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Atrium (University of Guelph)Same topicRangeland and Wildlife ManagementFrench-language works237,207