MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1507764210 · doi:10.22621/cfn.v117i4.799

Canopy Interception of Acid Deposition in Southern Ontario

2003· article· en· W1507764210 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Jules C. Carlson, William A. Gough, Jim D. Karagatzides, Leonard J. S. Tsuji

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Field-Naturalist · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant responses to elevated CO2
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThroughfallInterceptionCanopyEnvironmental sciencePrecipitationDeposition (geology)Acid rainFlux (metallurgy)Atmospheric sciencesAcid depositionHydrology (agriculture)Tree canopyEnvironmental chemistryForestryChemistrySoil scienceMeteorologyGeographyGeologyEcologySoil waterGeomorphologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The impact of tree canopies on acid deposition was examined. Differences in the chemical composition of unintercepted precipitation (dustfall) and canopy was intercepted precipitation (throughfall) at 18 southern Ontario forests, collected during the summers of 1995-1996, were chemically analyzed. The methodology of collection and analysis validated using consistency checks for interception loss, maintenance of electrical neutrality and ion correlation. T-test analyses found throughfall fluxes of K+, Ca2+, Mg2+, and NO3- were significantly higher than dustfall flux (p < 0.05), consistent with other studies. Barrie and nearby sites at Orillia and Bracebridge had larger dustfall depositions of base cations and Cl- suggesting a nearby source of these ions. T-tests revealed large exceedances of pH and sulphate concentration in dustfall over throughfall at the two Scarborough sites; a local point source of sulphates in the Greater Toronto Area was suspected.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.696
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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations10
Published2003
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Field-NaturalistSame topicPlant responses to elevated CO2French-language works237,207