Modelling the relationship between catchment attributes and wetland water quality in Japan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The influence of catchment attributes has been examined to find out whether variations in water quality indicators [electrical conductivity (EC), pH, turbidity, dissolved oxygen (DO), total dissolved solid (TDS), total nitrogen (TN), dissolved organic nitrogen (DON), dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN), temperature and nitrogen] could be explained by them for 24 wetlands in west Japan. Urban areas (%) were positively (P ≤ 0.05) correlated with EC (r = 0.67), TDS (r = 0.69), TN (r = 0.92), DON (r = 0.60), [NH4+] (r = 0.47) and with [NO2−] (r = 0.50). Forest areas (%) were inversely (P ≤ 0.05) correlated with EC (r = −0.62), TDS (r = −0.68), TN (r = −0.68) and [NH4+] (r = −0.55) and with DON (r = −0.43). Agricultural area (%) was positively (P ≤ 0.05) correlated with EC (r = 0.40), TDS (r = 0.45), TN (r = 0.44) and [NH4+] (r = 0.56) and with both areas (%) of grey lowland soil (r = 0.60) and diluvial sand (r = 0.58). Area (%) of regosol was positively correlated with DO (r = 0.42) but inversely with DON (r = −0.44, P ≤ 0.05). Rhyolite was positively (P ≤ 0.05) correlated with the TN (r = 0.46) but inversely with DON (r = −0.49) and [NH4+] (r = −0.47). Regression models were developed for the water quality indicators including EC (r2 = 0. 62), (r2 = 0.90), (r = 0.52), TN (r = 0.86), DIN (r2 = 0.74) and DON (r2 = 0.54) at 0.01 ≤ P ≤ 0.05. In the models, no significant contribution has been observed for catchment geometric features of the wetlands on water quality indicators. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".