Phosphate retention in an agricultural stream using experimental additions of phosphate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In‐stream experiments involving additions of phosphate were conducted to determine the soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP) retention potential of a perennial first‐order stream that drains a 2·7 km2 agricultural catchment in southern Ontario. SRP retention was determined in relation to highly elevated SRP concentrations under low flow conditions. Point source treatments of phosphate were added to three reaches of this stream during two time periods when baseline SRP concentrations were notably different (early summer and early autumn). The reaches selected varied with respect to streambed shape and gradient, direction of groundwater flow, and channel vegetation type and density. One of the three experimental stream reaches was dredged between the two sampling periods, so that all vegetation and the top 25 cm of sediments were removed. SRP retention in the stream ranged from 0·8 to 24·1 µg m−2 s−1. Dredging the stream sediments did not alter the ability of the stream to remove SRP from the water column. SRP retention over the experimental reaches was generally 5–10% of the elevated concentration (0·7–4·2 mg l−1, a factor of 8–53 above pre‐experiment conditions), although low‐flow conditions in the stream were conducive to retention by stream sediments. Copyright © 2003 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".