Challenges in tracking harmful algal blooms: A synthesis of evidence from Lake Erie
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Harmful algal blooms (HABs) are becoming increasingly common in freshwater ecosystems globally, raising complex questions about the factors that influence their initiation and growth. These questions have increasingly been answered through mechanistic and stochastic modeling efforts that rely on historical information about HABs in a given system for development, validation, and calibration. Therefore, understanding processes that control HABs is predicated on the ability to answer much more basic questions about what has actually occurred in a given system, namely questions of HAB occurrence, extent, intensity, and timing. Here we explore the state of the science in answering these basic questions; we use Lake Erie as a case study , where nearly two decades after the resurgence of HABs, a summer 2014 event caused a mandatory three day tap water ban for Toledo, Ohio. We find that, even for well-studied systems, unambiguous answers to basic questions about HAB occurrence are lacking, raising concerns about their use as a basis for addressing mechanistic questions about controlling factors. This ambiguity is found to be caused by differences in the methods used to track HABs, the specific harm being considered, the linkage to that harm (direct or indirect), the threshold defining harm, and spatiotemporal variability in sampling. Further work is therefore needed to integrate heterogeneous types of observations in order to better leverage existing and future monitoring programs, and to guide modeling efforts toward deeper understanding of HAB causes and consequences.
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 | 0.013 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".