Long‐term (18‐year) changes in sulphate concentrations in two Ontario headwater lakes and their inflows in response to decreasing deposition and climate variations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Sulphate concentrations in two headwater lakes and their major inflows were evaluated over an 18 year period (1980–81 to 1997–98) during which time sulphate bulk deposition declined by approximately 40%. The two lake catchments represent either end of the spectrum of acid sensitivity in the Muskoka–Haliburton region of Ontario. Between 1980 and 1998, sulphate concentrations in Harp and Plastic Lakes decreased, but the decrease was much less than expected (28% and 21% respectively) given the magnitude of change in deposition. Sulphate export in streams draining into the lakes greatly exceeded sulphate input to catchments in most years, which quantitatively explains the response of lake‐sulphate concentration. Furthermore, temporal patterns in mean annual sulphate concentrations in streams were similar, and appeared to be related to climate factors. Specifically, catchment export of sulphate was greater and stream‐sulphate concentrations were higher in years that had warm, dry summers, i.e. when streamflow in many catchments ceased for up to several weeks. Increased sulphate export from catchments resulted in higher sulphate concentrations in lakes, but the response of lake sulphate was not as immediate or dramatic as the response of stream sulphate to changes in catchment dryness. Factors that affect sulphate retention or export in catchments exert a strong influence on sulphate concentrations in lakes and streams and need to be considered when evaluating the response of surface water chemistry to changes in sulphate deposition. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".