Is the introduction of benthic species necessary for open-water chemical reconstruction in diatom-based transfer functions?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the overwhelming tendency in paleolimnology to use both planktonic and benthic diatoms when inferring open-water chemical conditions, it remains questionable whether all taxa are appropriate and necessary to construct useful inference models. We examined this question using a 75-lake training set from Quebec (Canada) to assess whether model performance is affected by the deletion of benthic species. Because benthic species are known to experience very different chemical conditions than their planktonic counterparts, we hypothesized that they would introduce undesirable noise in the calibration. Surprisingly, such important variables as pH, total phosphorus (TP), total nitrogen (TN), and dissolved organic carbon (DOC) were well predicted from weighted-averaging partial least square (WA-PLS) models based solely on benthic species. Similar results were obtained regardless of the depth of the lakes. Although the effective number of occurrence (N2) and the tolerance of species influenced the stability of the model residual error (jackknife), the number of species was the major factor responsible for the weaker inference models when based on planktonic diatoms alone. Indeed, when controlled for the number of species in WA-PLS models, individual planktonic diatom species showed superior predictive power over individual benthic species in inferring open-water chemical conditions.
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 | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".