Assessing Recovery from Acidification of European Surface Waters in the Year 2010: Evaluation of Projections Made with the MAGIC Model in 1995
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1999 we used the MAGIC (Model of Acidification of Groundwater In Catchments) model to project acidification of acid-sensitive European surface waters in the year 2010, given implementation of the Gothenburg Protocol to the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP). A total of 202 sites in 10 regions in Europe were studied. These forecasts can now be compared with measurements for the year 2010, to give a "ground truth" evaluation of the model. The prerequisite for this test is that the actual sulfur and nitrogen deposition decreased from 1995 to 2010 by the same amount as that used to drive the model forecasts; this was largely the case for sulfur, but less so for nitrogen, and the simulated surface water [NO3(-)] reflected this difference. For most of the sites, predicted surface water recovery from acidification for the year 2010 is very close to the actual recovery observed from measured data, as recovery is predominantly driven by reductions in sulfur deposition. Overall these results show that MAGIC successfully predicts future water chemistry given known changes in acid deposition.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".