MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1951695928 · doi:10.4236/jwarp.2015.711071

Cyanobacteria Diversity in Blooms from the Greater Sudbury Area

2015· article· en· W1951695928 on OpenAlexaffabout
Suzanne Evans, Mazen Saleh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Water Resource and Protection · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAquatic Ecosystems and Phytoplankton Dynamics
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCyanobacteriaNostocAnabaenaOscillatoriaLyngbyaEcologyTemperate climateMicrocystisBloomAlgal bloomBiologyBotanyPhytoplanktonBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Greater Sudbury Area is approximately 400 km north of the city of Toronto and falls within a large number of temperate lakes of various sizes. This area has been mined for nickel and other metals for several decades. These activities have affected the watersheds of Northern Ontario and have influenced the chemistry of a number of lakes. Blooms of cyanobacteria occur yearly in several lakes, mainly in the early and late summer months. Much of the chemistry of these lakes is known but the nature of the cyanobacterial blooms and the factors that may contribute to their sudden appearance are not. We sampled blooms from five Greater Sudbury Area lakes and identified the species present by morphological and molecular methods. The dominant genera present as characterized by morphological examination were Synechocystis, Leptolyngbya, Anabaena, Cyl-indrospermum, Nostoc, Borzia, Phormidium, Pseudoanabaena, Oscillatoria, and Planktothrix. Three of these isolates, Leptolyngbya, Anabaena, and Planktothrix were confirmed by partial rRNA sequence analysis.

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)0.000
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 score0.499
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.162 · 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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Water Resource and ProtectionSame topicAquatic Ecosystems and Phytoplankton DynamicsFrench-language works237,207