MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967909071 · doi:10.1029/2006eo320001

Lake Erie hypoxia prompts Canada‐U.S. study

2006· article· en· W1967909071 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nathan Hawley, Thomas H. Johengen, Yerubandi R. Rao, Steven A. Ruberg, Dmitry Beletsky, Stuart A. Ludsin, Brian J. Eadie, David J. Schwab, Thomas E. Croley, Stephen B. Brandt

Bibliographic record

VenueEos · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAquatic Invertebrate Ecology and Behavior
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEutrophicationHypoxia (environmental)BiotaEnvironmental scienceOceanographyStructural basinPhysical geographyGeographyHydrology (agriculture)EcologyGeologyBiologyOxygen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Because of its size and geometry, the central basin of Lake Erie, one of North America's Great Lakes, is subject to periods in the late summer when dissolved oxygen concentrations are low (hypoxia). An apparent increase in the occurrence of these eutrophic conditions and ‘dead zones’ in recent years has led to increased public concern. The International Field Years for Lake Erie (IFYLE) project of the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory (GLERL, a U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) laboratory), was established in 2005 in response to this increase. This project is investigating the causes and consequences of hypoxia in the lake. As part of the effort, scientists from the United States and Canada conducted an extensive field study in 2005 to gather more information on the duration and extent of the hypoxic zone and its effects on the biota in the lake. This article gives a brief history and description of the problem and presents initial results from the field study.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.151

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.180 · 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

Citations90
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEosSame topicAquatic Invertebrate Ecology and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207