MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1537792971 · doi:10.1080/14634988.2013.811381

Development of an integrated assessment of large lakes using towed in situ sensor technologies: Linking nearshore conditions with adjacent watersheds

2013· article· en· W1537792971 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
John R. Kelly, Peder M. Yurista

Bibliographic record

VenueAquatic Ecosystem Health & Management · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Environmental Protection Agency
KeywordsPlanktonEnvironmental sciencePhytoplanktonOceanographyStructural basinTowingRemote sensingZooplanktonEcologyGeographyGeologyEngineeringMarine engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Coastal and nearshore regions of most large lakes have not been included in monitoring efforts in a regular, consistent and comprehensive fashion. To address this need, we have been developing a survey approach using towed in situ sensors to provide spatially-extensive mapping of nearshore conditions. Within the last decade, we have applied a strategy of towing along the coastline in all five US/Canadian Laurentian Great Lakes. We have developed confidence in the strategy's ability to assess the entire nearshore region comprehensively and efficiently. This article presents an overview of steps of the development, a selection of representative results, and our continuing evaluation of the approach. Findings to date demonstrate an ability to establish linkages between conditions in the nearshore and adjacent watersheds at a variety of spatial scales, including to the US basin-wide level. Results here highlight two plankton sensors (fluorometer for phytoplankton and [laser] optical plankton counter ([L]OPC)) for zooplankton. Results suggested a strong coherence between plankton parameters and a non-linear relationship of plankton metrics to human development of the landscape across the Great Lakes basin.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.265 · 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.

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

Citations11
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAquatic Ecosystem Health & ManagementSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207