The erosion and sediment control practices study: Summary report - January 1993
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In October 1991, a study group composed of representatives from MTRCA and MOE determined to find the real causes for poor erosion control at construction sites, and to make recommendations that would protect nearby watercourses effectively. The work was funded by the Clean Sweep Lottery and the Toronto Area Watershed Management Extension Studies, while the Provincial Urban Drainage Advisory Committee (PUDAC), which had identified sediment and erosion control as a key element in its 1991/92 action plan, acted as the steering committee. From the outset, the study focused on erosion at urban construction sites in order to fill a significant gap in understanding. Other initiatives were already well underway to address rural erosion problems, such as Clean Up Rural Beaches (CURB), and erosion due to highway construction. Together, these efforts represent a comprehensive approach to a watershed's erosion and sedimentation problems. To solve the problem of erosion and sedimentation at urban construction sites across the province, the study group recommends: 1) That local municipalities adopt and enforce Top Soil Preservation By-laws, allowing them to control erosion and sedimentation at construction sites from an early stage; and that the Province aid the municipalities by developing a Model Top Soil By-law; 2) That the Province set up and carry out compliance monitoring programs on an interim basis in areas that do not have a Top Soil By-law, and audit construction sites in municipalities that do; 3) That the Province reallocate and reorganize staff and funds at the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) and MOE to better enforce and prosecute under the Federal Fisheries Act and the Ontario Water Resources Act (OWRA), in order to strengthen new local Top Soil By-laws; 4) That the Province encourage the development of a training course for contractors, consulting engineers, developers, and employees of regulatory agencies in the proper practices of erosion and sediment control at construction sites; 5) That the Province sponsor smaller, hands-on workshops for those same groups, emphasizing field work, and encouraging discussion and feedback. 6) The Provincial Urban Drainage Advisory Committee (PUDAC) may be an appropriate group to conduct such workshops, augment the existing Guidelines, and produce a reference handbook for contractors in the field. This summary report explains the background and rationale for the above recommendations.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
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.
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".