The Marmot and Streeter Exper~ental Basin Programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
tutod in 1917 in rocognition Of ttlO opociul ~tatu3 ttlut tho cd~torn olopo~ watershed had with respect to water supply in the Saskatchewan River. One of the ERFCB's principal functions was..... the conservation, development, ~intenance and management of the forests in such area (the eastern slopes watershed] with a view to obtaining the greatest possible flow of water in the Saskatchewan River and its tributaries, " Upon its request, the Alberta Watershed Research Program (AWRP) was initiated during the period 1960-1963 with the eatablishment of e~perimental water.heds at Marmot Creek and Streoter Creek to examine the effects of foreat cutting on streamflow and groundwater. The results are now available, and models that can be used to predict the impact of forest cutting on water yield throughout the eastern slopes are available to forest and water management agencies. In spite of this ostentatious beginning and wealth of technology tranafer tools, the impact of the Marmot and Streeter projects on water ~nagement in Alberta and upon forest management within the eastern slopes
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.001 |
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".