MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

46 
Near shore sediment diatoms of the great lakes and their use as biological indicators

2003· article· en· W2044798523 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael J. Ferguson, S. W. Halady, Gerald V. Sgro, Jeffrey R. Johansen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Phycology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil and Water Nutrient Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShoreSedimentWater qualityEnvironmental scienceEcosystemSampling (signal processing)Lake ecosystemHydrology (agriculture)NutrientOceanographyEcologyPhysical geographyBiologyGeographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The great Lakes Environmental Indicators (GLEI) project, funded through the U.S. EPA, has set goals to identify taxa that will be useful in determining ecosystem integrity in near shore waters of the Great Lakes ecosystem. Through the development of biological indices, rapid, consistent, and inexpensive methods of bioassessment of the Great Lakes can be utilized. This particular study focuses on the use of near shore sediment diatoms. Sediment core collection and water sampling and analysis were completed at nearly 100 stratified randomly selected sites across all five of the Great Lakes. Canonical correspondence analysis (CCA) indicated a gradient of water quality throughout the Great Lakes. Lake Superior was determined to have the lowest concentration of measured nutrients, while Lake Erie and Lake Ontario had the highest. Lake Michigan and Lake Huron shared a similar transitional water quality. Although analyses and indices have been developed thus far, GLEI is in its third year of a 4‐year schedule.

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 score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

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 communication0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of PhycologySame topicSoil and Water Nutrient DynamicsFrench-language works237,207