MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W163614281 · doi:10.2166/wqrj.2005.045

Diatom- and Chironomid-Inferred Eutrophication of Bouchie Lake, British Columbia

2005· article· en· W163614281 on OpenAlexaffabout
Markus Heinrichs, Brian F. Cumming, Kathleen R. Laird, J. Sanford Hart

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Quality Research Journal · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicDiatoms and Algae Research
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityOkanagan University College
FundersAlexander von Humboldt-Stiftung
KeywordsDiatomEutrophicationChironomidaeNutrientPaleolimnologyFragilariaLittoral zoneEcologyEnvironmental sciencePhytoplanktonBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Diatom and chironomid analysis of sediments encompassing the past 400 years from Bouchie Lake, British Columbia, suggests two distinct periods of limnological conditions. Prior to 1950 AD, Fragilaria construens and F. pinnata are the most common diatom species, and Chironomus, Procladius and Tanytarsini dominate the chironomid record. Moderately low nutrient concentrations consistent with oligo-mesotrophic lakes are inferred. From 1950, the diatom assemblage is dominated by Stephanodiscus parvus, a eutrophic indicator, whereas the chironomid communities show a relative increase in littoral taxa coincident with lower head capsule abundance. Higher nutrient levels, specifically total phosphorus, which increased from 8 µg L-1 prior to 1950 to 20 µg L-1 currently, are coincident with midge communities indicative of lower oxygen concentrations. Observed biotic changes and nutrient levels inferred from the sediment core correspond to historical land-use changes.

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)0.001
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 score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.304 · 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

Citations5
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Quality Research JournalSame topicDiatoms and Algae ResearchFrench-language works237,207