MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7037806284

Evaluation of natural channel design applications in southwestern Ontario

2001· dissertation· en· W7037806284 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Atrium (University of Guelph) · 2001
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Sediment Transport Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChannel (broadcasting)Natural (archaeology)Stability (learning theory)Function (biology)FluvialBoundary (topology)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

'Natural' channel design is a practice increasingly used in restoration projects to construct watercourse channels that emulate the physical form and function of natural fluvial systems. However, little is known regarding the success of 'natural' channel design in attaining the stability that characterizes natural systems. A research study was conducted to evaluate the long-term performance of 'natural' channel design applications in five streams in Southwestern Ontario. The existing condition of the study channels was characterized through qualitative observation, topographic surveys, bed material sampling, and numerical modelling. The results were compared with baseline data to assess channel change since construction. Findings demonstrate that the study channels had maintained a relatively stable form over a period of 4 to 7 years. However, natural physical function was not achieved at any of the study sites because the boundary material used to form the channels was too large to permit channel adjustment. There was also that evidence that inconsistencies and errors in design methods may have resulted in channel designs that were incompatible with local conditions.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.437
Threshold uncertainty score0.880

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.207 · 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
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Atrium (University of Guelph)→Same topicHydrology and Sediment Transport Processes→French-language works237,207→