MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6991860844

Inventory of land use and land use practices in the Canadian Great Lakes Basin: Report of the International Reference Group on Great Lakes Pollution from Land Use Activities, Volume III, Canadian Lake Huron Basin

2018· report· en· W6991860844 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Atrium (University of Guelph) · 2018
Typereport
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWater Resources and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLand useStructural basinVolume (thermodynamics)RecreationHydrology (agriculture)PollutionDrainage basinBaseline (sea)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This volume presents an Inventory of Land Use and Land Use Practices in the Canadian Great Lakes Basin, with emphasis on certain trends and projections to 1980 (and to 2020 where appropriate). The Task B report for the Canadian part of the Great Lakes Basin is contained in five volumes: Volume I Canadian Great Lakes Basin Summary, Volume II Lake Superior Basin, Volume III Lake Huron Basin, Volume IV Lake Erie Basin, and Volume V Lake Ontario Basin. This volume, Volume III, focusses on the Lake Huron Basin. The report integrates several studies by contractors and sub-contractors. These studies were part of the Canadian Task B effort for the Great Lakes Pollution from Land Use Activities Reference Group, International Joint Commission. This report describes and quantifies, as appropriate, the Canadian Great Lakes Basin's geology, soils, minerals, climate, surface and ground water, vegetation, wildlife, and economic and demographic characteristics. It inventories available information on waste disposal operations, lakeshore and riverbank erosion, high-density non-sewered residential areas and recreational land uses, as well as materials application of agricultural chemicals, fertilizers, animal wastes and salts on highways. Finally, future trends and projections are shown for the above categories.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.402
Threshold uncertainty score0.622

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.190 · 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.

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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Atrium (University of Guelph)Same topicWater Resources and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207