MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Terraview and Willowfield Stormwater Pond Sediment and Water Quality

2007· dataset· en· W6963217711 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueECCC Data Catalogue · 2007
Typedataset
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsMinistère des Ressources naturelles et des ForêtsGovernment of CanadaEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStormwaterSurface runoffSedimentHydrology (agriculture)Water qualityRetention basinUrban runoffHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stormwater ponds have been widely used to control increased volumes and rates of surface runoff resulting from urbanization. Stormwater ponds have also been designed to provide multiple other benefits; including protection of downstream waters, sediment and habitat (land/aquatic) quality, provision of educational, recreational use as well as aesthetic amenities. Stormwater ponds create unique opportunities for enhancing community benefits, but they also cause ecological concerns with respect to the quality of the newly created habitat. Stormwater ponds receive untreated runoff from urban areas and transportation corridors, and such runoff transports sediment and pollutants from urban sources into the stormwater facilities. Built in the mid 1990s the Terraview and Willowfield stormwater ponds currently receive water and sediment runoff from 9 hectares of a 16-lane freeway and runoff from 30 hectares of residential lands. This dataset contains stormwater data from two stormwater ponds (Terraview and Willowfield) located within the Toronto and Region Area of concern (AOC). The data are water and sediment chemistry, and are used to evaluate the effectiveness of the two-stormwater ponds in providing a suitable habitat for aquatic species and wildlife species over a two-year period (2007 and 2008). Water and sediment samples were analyzed for trace metals such as calcium, nickel, and lead as well as 16 priority polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.005

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueECCC Data CatalogueFrench-language works237,207