MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989362799 · doi:10.1139/f99-246

Sediment dynamics in the fluvial lakes of the St. Lawrence River: accumulation rates and characterization of the mixed sediment layer

2000· article· en· W1989362799 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Richard Carignan, Stéphane Lorrain

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Sediment Transport Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSedimentSedimentationHydrology (agriculture)Mixed layerParticulatesEnvironmental scienceSedimentary budgetGeologySediment transportGeomorphologyOceanographyEcologyGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Permanent sedimentation ( 210 Pb and 137 Cs), sediment mixed layer thicknesses, and mixing coefficients ( 7 Be) were measured in the St. Lawrence River in order to evaluate the importance of sediment retention in the particulate matter budget and to characterize the system's resilience to changing contaminant loads. Net sediment accumulation (1 to > 18 kg·m -2 ·year -1 ) is observed at most sites deeper than 4.5 m located outside the main channels. Annual sediment retention in the lakes ranges from 1.5% (Lake St. Pierre) to 17% (Lake St. Francis) of their total load of suspended solids. 7 Be profiles indicate that the average mixed layer thickness, mixed layer mass, and mixing coefficient are 3.3 ± 0.2 cm, 17.8 ± 1.7 kg·m -2 , and 14.9 ± 2.8 cm 2 ·year -1 , respectively. The average depth of the long-term (approximately 5 years) mixed layer determined from the 137 Cs : anthropogenic Pb ratio is 5.1 ± 0.4 cm, corresponding to 30.6 ± 4.6 kg·m -2 . Because the mixing coefficient in superficial sediments is relatively high, and because annual particulate matter loading to the river is comparable with its mixed sediment inventory, the system is expected to have a rather short memory of past conditions and to recover rapidly (2-5 years) following a decrease in contaminant loading.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations28
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicHydrology and Sediment Transport ProcessesFrench-language works237,207