MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064582342 · doi:10.1080/14634981003788821

Limnological characteristics of Canada's poorly known large lakes

2010· article· en· W2064582342 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Charles K. Minns

Bibliographic record

VenueAquatic Ecosystem Health & Management · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Quality and Pollution Assessment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersFisheries and Oceans Canada
KeywordsWatershedEnvironmental scienceHydrology (agriculture)Physical geographyGeographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canada holds several of the world's large lakes (⩾100 km2). Many of these lakes, apart from the largest like the Great Lakes, are almost unknown beyond their location and area. This study documents a recent compilation and analyses of some key limnological features of these lakes: drainage area, lake area, maximum and mean depth, pH, Secchi depth, and total dissolved solids. The analyses showed the relationships among these features and with their primary watershed and ecozone assignments. Lake area and maximum depth were good predictors of some of the other lake variables. Ecozone was generally a better predictor than primary watershed of regional variation in lake variables with lake area or maximum depth as a covariate scaling for lake size. To enable regional impact assessments of cumulative environmental pressures of Canada's large lakes, these predictive regression models provide a stop-gap means for estimating key lake characteristics when data are missing. However, as cumulative pressures increase, Canada needs to increase efforts to undertake limnological inventories and learn more first hand about these poorly known 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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations7
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAquatic Ecosystem Health & ManagementSame topicWater Quality and Pollution AssessmentFrench-language works237,207