A Manitoba regional perspective on wetlands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Part one provides a general review of the wetlands topic from a Manitoba regional perspective with regard to wetlands distribution, values, protection efforts, definitions, classification systems and existing inventories. There is qualitative information claiming the developed portion of Manitoba has lost more than 70% of its wetlands due to agriculture but there is no comprehensive inventory information against which to compare for change assessments. Part two provides an inventory of wetland magnitude and distribution by surface watersheds and by land and water cover types throughout the agricultural portion of Manitoba. The inventory is based on a land cover database compiled during the 1980s by the Manitoba Forestry Branch. Groundtruthing was completed to confirm the database's current relevance. The inventory found that on average, 11% of the study area was covered with wetland vegetation. The portion of wetland cover in the 28 watersheds of the study area ranged from 0.5 to 36%. The portion of privately-owned wetlands in the watersheds ranged from 5 to 92%. Wetlands have been almost eliminated in some of the most intensively drained and farmed watersheds. In these areas a more active approach is required if representative wetland environments are to be saved.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.002 |
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".