MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7056339440

The erosion and sediment control practices study: Summary report - January 1993

2019· report· en· W7056339440 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Atrium (University of Guelph) · 2019
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLaser Design and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsErosionErosion controlSoil conservationWatershedSediment controlWork (physics)SedimentationDrainageChristian ministry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.260
Threshold uncertainty score0.576

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.219 · 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