Bibliographic record
Abstract
Freshwater fish fauna was compared among 5 types of revetments: wooden revetment, block mat revetment, and other three types by Onikura et al.（2007） in irrigation canals and ditches in the Chikugo and Saga Plains. The block mat revetment had negative effect on fish species richness and appearances of several threatened species, while the wooden revetment was evaluated to have a high conservation effect on the species richness because the average number of species were almost as same as the earth revetment. However, wooden revetment was shown to be impact on only golden venus chub among the threatened species. Therefore, in the future management and reconstruction of wooden revetments, it is necessary to consider the environmental preference of this fish. From the wood consumption of the wooden revetment in irrigation canals and ditches reconstructed by Saga Prefecture since 2012, the carbon storage quantity was estimated to exceed 40,000 ton-CO^2, which was estimated to be equivalent to about 15,000 times of annual CO^2 emission per household. These results support that the canals and ditches of the wooden revetment has not only previous multifaceted function but also a biodiversity conservation and a carbon storage function.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".