MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094800884 · doi:10.1073/pnas.0702777104

Crossing the final ecological threshold in high Arctic ponds

2007· article· en· W2094800884 on OpenAlexaff
John P. Smol, Marianne S. V. Douglas

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicClimate change and permafrost
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArcticEnvironmental scienceBiodiversityTundraAquatic ecosystemEcosystemEcologyDesiccationSurface waterPrecipitationLake ecosystemClimate changeTerrestrial ecosystemPhysical geographyOceanographyGeographyBiologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A characteristic feature of most Arctic regions is the many shallow ponds that dot the landscape. These surface waters are often hotspots of biodiversity and production for microorganisms, plants, and animals in this otherwise extreme terrestrial environment. However, shallow ponds are also especially susceptible to the effects of climatic changes because of their relatively low water volumes and high surface area to depth ratios. Here, we describe our findings that some high Arctic ponds, which paleolimnological data indicate have been permanent water bodies for millennia, are now completely drying during the polar summer. By comparing recent pond water specific conductance values to similar measurements made in the 1980s, we link the disappearance of the ponds to increased evaporation/precipitation ratios, probably associated with climatic warming. The final ecological threshold for these aquatic ecosystems has now been crossed: complete desiccation.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations388
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicClimate change and permafrostFrench-language works237,207