MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7098590228

WATER AND SEDIMENT QUALITY IN DITCHES DRAINING THE HICKSON PROPERTY AND

2007· article· en· W7098590228 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotany, Ecology, and Taxonomy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHydrology (agriculture)Water qualitySurface runoffPlumeSedimentErosionSTREAMSDrainageDitch
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This document contains the three reports produced by the teams following the September investigations. Following are synopses of these investigations and their conclusions. Drainage ditches received runoff water from the fire fighting effort. These ditches lead to Highland Creek a short distance to the east. Sediments and water samples were collected from these ditches and the creek and analyzed for metals and chlorinated organic compounds. While Provincial Water Quality Objectives were exceeded in Highland Creek for aluminum, nickel and iron, in some samples, these findings could not be attributed to the fire. Given the degree of urbanization around the creek and throughout its watershed, these findings are not considered unusual. An evaluation as to potential sources was beyond the scope of this fire investigation. Assessment of Lake Ontario water at the mouth of Highland Creek and near water treatment intakes was performed with instrumentation that measures fluorescence due to hydrocarbons in the water. These measurements were not any higher than what is normally encountered near urban stream inflows. This is in contrast to measurements during the fire which revealed a large plume in the lake. Water samples did not contain measurable concentrations of the organic compound detected soon after the fire. Metal concentrations were either similar to or lower than where detected during the fire. The effect of the fire was to produce a short-lived plume of water with degraded quality which dissipated within 48 hours Samples of soil and pine foliage were collected at most of the same locations as in April. Analyses of these samples for dioxins, furans and PAHs reveled that these compounds were either no longer detectable or were at lower concentrations. The sooty deposits on...

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.186
Threshold uncertainty score0.370

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBotany, Ecology, and Taxonomy StudiesFrench-language works237,207