MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964439904 · doi:10.1139/f04-165

Risk analysis of dissolved organic matter-mediated ultraviolet B exposure in Canadian inland waters

2004· article· en· W1964439904 on OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff
Lewis A. Molot, W. Keller, Peter R. Leavitt, Richard D. Robarts, Marley J. Waiser, Michael T. Arts, Thomas A. Clair, Reinhard Pienitz, Norman D. Yan, Donald K. McNicol, Yves T. Prairie, Peter J. Dillon, Merrin L. Macrae, Ricardo Bello, Rick Nordin, P. Jefferson Curtis, John P. Smol, M SV Douglas

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDissolved organic carbonDaphniaArcticZooplanktonRadianceEnvironmental scienceCladoceraEnvironmental chemistryOrganic matterEcologyUltravioletOzoneSurface waterAquatic ecosystemAtmospheric sciencesOceanographyChemistryBiologyGeographyGeologyEnvironmental engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With depleted ozone levels and the possibility that climate change might lower dissolved organic matter (DOM) concentrations, the risk of exposure of fresh waters in Canada to ultraviolet B (UV-B) was evaluated. First, the distribution of a UV-B-sensitive zooplankton genus, Daphnia, was examined as a function of DOM concentration and maximum depth (Zmax) in 258 systems. Distribution was not restricted by UV-B, although very clear, shallow systems are underrepresented. Secondly, the depth at which 1% of surface radiance at 320 nm occurs (Z320,1%) was compared with Zmax in over 1000 aquatic systems in 15 ecozones to determine the proportions of optically clear systems (Zmax ≤ Z320,1%) and systems that may become clear (i.e., are "at risk") should DOM decrease by 50%. South of the treeline, <6% of systems were clear, with the exception of two ecozones with 10%–20%. The proportion of systems at risk was 0% in most regions, with 5%–9% in four regions. DOM levels appear adequate to prevent extirpation of sensitive taxa like Daphnia through direct exposure to UV-B in most regions south of the treeline. However, optically clear and at-risk ponds were much more common in the three Artic ecozones, especially the Northern Arctic and Arctic Cordillera.

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)0.002
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 score0.105
Threshold uncertainty score0.211

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.170
Teacher spread0.163 · 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

Citations42
Published2004
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicMarine and coastal ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207