Comparing diatom species, genera and size in biomonitoring: a case study from streams in the Laurentians (Québec, Canada)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. We studied the distribution of epilithic diatoms in streams subjected to different degrees of human impact in order to evaluate their potential as bioindicators for environmental changes such as nutrient enrichment and acidification. 2. Three descriptors of the diatom assemblages were tested with respect to their potential to predict environmental changes: species composition, genus composition and size distribution. 3. Water colour and pH explained the largest amount of variation in diatom assemblages. According to ordination analyses, water colour explained variations in size distribution (42%) better than those in generic (25%) or species composition (8%). On the other hand, pH was not correlated with size distribution while a significant fraction of variation was explained by species (11%) and especially generic (18%) composition. Only species composition responded to changes in phosphorus and grazer biomass, however. 4. Size distribution and coarse (genus level) taxonomic analyses sometimes outperformed fine taxonomy in describing the response of diatom assemblages to colour and acidity. In view of the simplicity of these alternative descriptions of diatom assemblages, their potential for routine stream monitoring should be further explored.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it