MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7096136231

The Manual of British Columbia Hydrometric Standards, version 1.0 is an updated and

2009· article· en· W7096136231 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Quality and Resources Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsData setData qualitySet (abstract data type)Quality (philosophy)Process (computing)Data acquisition
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

British Columbia (SOPHS), version 1.1, 1998. It defines a set of standards with detailed procedures for the acquisition of water quantity data, assessing the data, quality and quantifying data grades. This manual supersedes SOPHS, version 1.1 (1998). The changes to the previous document are based on comments of reviewers and users. It incorporates some of the National Standards (Environment Canada) and adds new information and ideas. Some of the improvements are: • There are new RISC forms for recording the data and calculations. These forms are designed for entry of the data into the ministry’s Water Information Data Management (WIDM) system. • There is a detailed validation process that includes the steps required in reviewing the data and a way of quantifying the quality of the data using data grades. The criteria for the data grades are explained in detail and the information can be obtained directly from the new RISC forms. • New equipment available for hydrometric surveys is identified and discussed. The technologies for collecting, calculating, and storing hydrometric data are continually

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.224
Threshold uncertainty score0.450

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0120.021
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0780.050

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.213 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWater Quality and Resources StudiesFrench-language works237,207