MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1942321685 · doi:10.1139/er-2015-0030

Continuous and high-frequency measurements in limnology: history, applications, and future challenges

2015· article· en· W1942321685 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Pille Meinson, Agron Idrizaj, Peeter Nõges, Tiina Nõges, Alo Laas

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Reviews · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLimnologyEnvironmental scienceEcologyOceanographyPhysical geographyHydrology (agriculture)GeographyGeologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the past 15 years, an increasing number of studies in limnology have been using data from high-frequency measurements (HFM). This new technology offers scientists a chance to investigate lakes at time scales that were not possible earlier and in places where regular sampling would be complicated or even dangerous. This has allowed capturing the effects of episodic or extreme events, such as typhoons on lakes. In the present paper we review the various fields of limnology, such as monitoring, studying highly dynamic processes, lake metabolism studies, and budget calculations, where HFM has been applied, and which have benefitted most from the application. Our meta-analysis showed that more than half of the high-frequency studies from lakes were made in North America and Europe. The main field of application has been lake ecology (monitoring, lake metabolism) followed by physical limnology. Water temperature and dissolved oxygen have been the most universal and commonly measured parameters and we review the various study purposes for which these measurements have been used. Although a considerable challenge for the future, our review highlights that broadening the spatial scale of HFM would substantially broaden the applicability of these data across a spectrum of different fields.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.770
Threshold uncertainty score0.341

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.159 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations61
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental ReviewsSame topicMarine and coastal ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207