MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998946038 · doi:10.1080/10643389.2010.530577

Long-Term Water Quality Trends in the Lake Okeechobee Watershed, Florida

2011· article· en· W1998946038 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Joyce Zhang, Patricia M. Burke, Nenad Iricanin, Steven D. Hill, Susan Gray, Richard Budell

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil and Water Nutrient Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsWatershedEnvironmental scienceWater qualityTerm (time)Hydrology (agriculture)Water resource managementEcologyGeologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A Seasonal Kendall Tau test was used to determine statistical significance of mean monthly total phosphorus (TP) and total nitrogen (TN) concentration trends during the time period of 1991–2007, by station and basin at 35 long-term water quality monitoring stations located within the northern Lake Okeechobee watershed. One drainage basin (S-154) had a significant decreasing trend for mean monthly TP concentrations during the analysis period. A significant increase in TN concentrations was detected for four basins during this same time period. The S-154 basin which had the significant decreasing trend for TP also had the highest percentage of implemented Best Management Practices (BMPs) and the most rigorous types of nutrient control projects. These findings emphasize the need for continued implementation of intensive P management strategies. The increasing trend in TN for this watershed signals the need for added focus on reductions of TN in future nutrient source control projects and BMPs.

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)0.001
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 score0.203
Threshold uncertainty score0.404

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Citations16
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Reviews in Environmental Science and TechnologySame topicSoil and Water Nutrient DynamicsFrench-language works237,207