Bibliographic record
Abstract
From time to time, we publish “theme issues ” of On Tap. In the past, we’ve explored topics such as conservation, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and community self help. Obviously, this sort of endeavor requires a great deal of foresight and planning. Other times, though, a theme emerges as the stories come together. That’s exactly what happened with this issue. The idea of “smart growth ” can not only be found in the cover story, but as a concept—either implicit or explicit—in several other articles as well. Water rights and water as a valuable resource are also topics that appear in more than one article. I’m pleased to welcome two new graphic designers to the National Environmental Services Center team. Chris Metzgar joined us at the beginning of September. His technical drawings complement the latest Tech Brief, found in the center of this magazine. Chris will work primarily with the National Environmental Training Center for Small Communities, one of our partner organizations. This is actually the second issue of On Tap featuring design and artwork by Julie Black. Julie started work here in May and will work on National Drinking Water Clearinghouse publications. A warm welcome to both Chris and Julie. On a sad note: The terrible events of September 11, 2001, occurred while we were finishing this issue of On Tap. The assault on our country’s great cities takes its place among the darkest days in U.S. history. While we are all touched by this catastrophe, we want to express deep regret and sincere sympathy to those who lost family, friends or co-workers in this national tragedy. To help communities protect their water systems from terrorism and sabotage, we have placed a number of useful documents and links on our Web site (www.ndwc.wvu.edu). And, the Winter 2001-02 On Tap will be a special counter-terrorism issue. If you have any comments or suggestions, feel free to call me at (800) 624-8301 or send an e-mail to
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.147 | 0.032 |
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".