Notice to Readers Review of Potentially Applicable Approaches to Benthic Invertebrate Data Analysis and Interpretation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Aquatic Effects Technology Evaluation (AETE) program was established to review appropriate technologies for assessing the impacts of mine effluents on the aquatic environment. AETE is a cooperative program between the Canadian mining industry, several federal government departments and a number of provincial governments; it is coordinated by the Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology (CANMET). The program was designed to be of direct benefit to the industry, and to government. Through technical and field evaluations, it identified cost-effective technologies to meet environmental monitoring requirements. The program included three main areas: acute and sublethal toxicity testing, biological monitoring in receiving waters, and water and sediment monitoring. The technical evaluations are conducted to document certain tools selected by AETE members, and to provide the rationale for doing a field evaluation of the tools or provide specific guidance on field application of a method. In some cases, the technical evaluations included a go/no go recommendation that AETE takes into consideration before a field evaluation of a given method is conducted. The technical evaluations are published although they do not necessarily reflect the views of the
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 | 0.012 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.125 | 0.087 |
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".