Replication Data for: Washburn and Gillis, Saint John Harbour, New Brunswick (1993) (CC BY 4.0)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was undertaken by Washburn and Gillis Associates Ltd between 1991-92 across the inner and outer Saint John Harbour (SJH), New Brunswick. The study is split into two components: Component A – A Study of the Saint John Harbour Environmental Quality, and Component B - A Study of Wastewater Treatment for the City of Saint John. The data published by COINAtlantic on Dataverse is from Component A. The first phase of Component A sought to characterize the environmental profile of the SJH, including hydrographic and sedimentological conditions, fisheries, and land use, as well as municipal and industrial effluent outfall. Additionally, tributary water quality sampling was undertaken at four stations during high and low flow periods for numerous inorganic, organic, and heavy metal parameters (Tables 4-4 -- 4-7). Lastly, an effluent sampling program sampled effluent discharge across nine industrial sites for numerous inorganic, organic, and heavy metal parameters (Tables 4-10 -- 4-18). The second phase of Component A included a Harbor Sampling Program that looked at sediment contaminant (heavy metals, PCBs, PAHs, organo-chlorinated pesticides, extractable organic chlorine, grain size, oil and grease, carbon content), and biota contaminant burdens of two trophic level species as well as their biotic response to contaminants (Tables 5-3 -- 5-15, not 5-11). Biota included the blue mussel (Mytilus edulis) (sampled for heavy metals, PCBs, PAHs), and the winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus) (sampled for heavy metals) using a mixed-function oxidase (MFO) test. These data, combined with the environmental profile were used to inform whether and where the SJH acts as a contaminant sink, as well as contribute to the third phase of Component A, the development of recommended parameters to include in a harbour monitoring program. Environment and Climate Change Canada’s Atlantic Ecosystems Initiatives program provided funding for COINAtlantic (coinatlantic.ca) to undertake data rescue work on this study and make this data publicly available under the FAIR data guiding principles.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.796 | 0.526 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".