MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7095914120

Governor Frank Keating’s TAR CREEK SUPERFUND TASK FORCE Drainage and Flooding SubcommitteeEXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2000· article· en· W7095914120 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Quality and Resources Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlooding (psychology)DrainageSTREAMStar (computing)Hydrology (agriculture)Drainage system (geomorphology)Governor
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prior to mining activities in Ottawa County, water was considered to be one of the area's greatest resources. In 1902, the water was described to be "clear and sparkling. " One author predicted that "The Neosho River and Tar Creek would furnish a never failing supply of the purest and cleanest (water). " Nearly 100 years later, these same streams are contributors to the environmental problems in the area due to poor drainage and flooding as a result of mining activities. The Tar Creek drainage area north of Miami, Oklahoma, has been greatly disturbed by more than 80 years of mining activity that has resulted in a system of poorly draining streams that are commonly bankfull of water during non-flood periods. Without modification, the Tar Creek drainage system will continue to function as it presently does with frequent flooding being experienced in the area due to the hydraulic inefficiency of the streams. This report was prepared at the request of the Tar Creek Superfund Task Force which was established by Executive Order 2000-02 dated January 20, 2000 and signed by Governor Frank Keating. The Drainage and Flooding Subcommittee consisted of volunteers from

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.567
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.186 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWater Quality and Resources StudiesFrench-language works237,207