MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7017202997

Analysis of Atlantic salmon habitat distribution and sensitivity to forest extraction in the Cascapédia River drainage basin using a GIS

2003· other· en· W7017202997 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueLibrary and Archives Canada (Government of Canada) · 2003
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish biology, ecology, and behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHydrology (agriculture)Drainage basinDrainage densityHabitatSpatial distributionSTREAMSSedimentChannel (broadcasting)Drainage
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The relationships between local and catchment-wide land use patterns and the spatial distribution of stream habitat variables within the Grande Cascapedia drainage basin were investigated using a geographic information system (GIS). Stream habitat variables including substrate composition and channel morphology were sampled at 48 study sites, ranging from highly disturbed to relatively pristine forest conditions in 2nd to 5th order tributaries. Land use and geology-structure variables were extracted for each catchment at four spatial scales using a GIS. The transition between pool-riffle and boulder-rapid morphologies occurred between channel gradients of 1.5% and 1.7%. The surface grainsize distribution is affected by the hydraulic power of the reach, while the subsurface grainsize distribution is associated with the degree of valley incision. The amount of logging within a 1 km radius of a sample site increases the occurrence of fine sediment within the substrate. There was, however, a surprising lack of relationship between the majority of road density metrics and the level of fines within the substrate.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.858
Threshold uncertainty score0.282

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.175
Teacher spread0.170 · 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
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLibrary and Archives Canada (Government of Canada)Same topicFish biology, ecology, and behaviorFrench-language works237,207