MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056168196 · doi:10.1139/f01-109

Biological implications of empirical models of winter oxygen depletion

2001· article· en· W2056168196 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Marianne E. Meding, Leland J. Jackson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAquatic Ecosystems and Phytoplankton Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMacrophyteTemperate climateEnvironmental scienceChlorophyll aSedimentPhytoplanktonAtmospheric sciencesPhotosynthesisWaves and shallow waterOceanographyOxygenHydrology (agriculture)ChlorophyllEcologyNutrientGeologyBiologyChemistryBotanyGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We compiled data for 23 North American temperate zone lakes to assess three alternative winter O2 depletion models for estimating O2 dynamics from freezing to thawing. Dissolved O2 concentrations were constant or declined slightly for an average of 40 days after freezing and then declined rapidly. Once O2 concentrations reached 1–3 mg·L–1, consumption slowed. No model that we fit captured O2 dynamics shortly after freezing. The best fit was a one-pool exponential decay model after one to four initial data were removed. Photosynthesis and freeze-out estimates suggest that O2 inputs are more important in shallow than in deep lakes. Oxygen decay rates (k) correlated with morphometry in shallow lakes and chlorophyll a, Secchi depth, and the sediment surface area to volume ratio in deep lakes. We hypothesize that the failure of chlorophyll a to correlate with k in shallow lakes is because macrophytes are the primary source of decaying organic matter but have not been included in assessments of winter O2 depletion. Thus, some processes in deep lakes cannot simply be scaled to smaller scales in shallow 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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.047
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 score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.047
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations30
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicAquatic Ecosystems and Phytoplankton DynamicsFrench-language works237,207