MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2050643263 · doi:10.1139/f05-127

Modelling ice cover, timing of spring stratification, and end-of-season mixing depth in small Precambrian Shield lakes

2005· article· en· W2050643263 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Kendra L Cahill, John M. Gunn, Martyn N. Futter

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeology and Paleoclimatology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStratification (seeds)Environmental scienceHydrology (agriculture)Surface waterWater columnSpring (device)Atmospheric sciencesGeologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

From a 3-year study of 21 northern Ontario lakes, models were developed to determine the duration of ice cover, predict the timing of spring stratification, and predict the end-of-season mixing depth. The model to determine lake freeze and thaw dates was based on the daily variability of water temperature measured with a data logger suspended 1 and 2 m below the surface. The model to predict the duration of time (days) from lake thaw to lake stratification was developed using the mean May air temperature (degrees Celsius), dissolved organic carbon, and lake surface area (r2 = 0.79). The end-of-season mixing depth was best predicted using days to stratification and dissolved organic carbon concentration (r2 = 0.72). By applying a simple climate change scenario model, we were able to show that increased air temperature, rather than increased water clarity, was the most important factor affecting the timing of stratification. In contrast, lake clarity was the most important factor affecting end-of-season mixing depth in small Shield lakes.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.514
Threshold uncertainty score0.966

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.186 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences→Same topicGeology and Paleoclimatology Research→French-language works237,207→