MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7095349897

P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd. The Stream Crossing Quality Index: A Water Quality Indicator for Sustainable Forest Management

2004· article· en· W7095349897 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPrenatal Screening and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWater qualitySedimentHazardErosionSTREAMSForest roadForest managementQuality (philosophy)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the goals of sustainable forest management is the maintenance of water quality. One of the biggest forestry related impacts to water quality is accelerated sediment delivery to streams at road crossings. Good road building and maintenance practices will minimize the erosion hazard and related negative impacts to water quality. Based on this, several divisions of Canadian Forest Products Ltd. have recognized that a good water quality indicator should be based on a field-survey that evaluates effectiveness of controlling accelerated erosion and sediment delivery at stream crossings. This has led to the development of a sediment source hazard assessment procedure called the Stream Crossing Quality Index (SCQI). The procedure evaluates and scores the size and characteristics of road-related sediment sources at crossings and the potential for the eroded sediment to reach the stream environment. A high score infers that there is a significant erosion problem which may in turn cause sediment-related water quality problems. The SCQI is a good management tool because it identifies specific problems in the landscape and provides future direction to minimize them.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.299
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2990.214

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.305 · 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.

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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPrenatal Screening and Diagnostics→French-language works237,207→