MODELING TRANSIENT pH DEPRESSIONS IN COASTAL STREAMS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA USING NEURAL NETWORKS<sup>1</sup>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Transient events in water chemistry in small coastal watersheds, particularly pH depressions, are largely driven by inputs of precipitation. While the response of each watershed depends upon both the nature of the precipitation event and the season of the year, how the response changes over time can provide insight into landscape changes. Neural network models for an urban watershed and a rural‐suburban watershed were developed in an attempt to detect changes in system response resulting from changes in the landscape. Separate models for describing pH depressions for wet season and dry season conditions were developed for a seven year period at each watershed. The neural network models allowed separation of the effects of precipitation variations and changes in watershed response. The ability to detect trends in pH depression magnitudes was improved by analyzing neural network residuals rather than the raw data. Examination of sensitivity plots of the models indicated how the neural networks were affected by different inputs. There were large differences in effects between seasons in the rural‐suburban watershed whereas effects in the urban watershed were consistent between seasons. During the study period, the urban watershed showed no change in pH depression response, while the rural‐suburban watershed showed a significant increase in the magnitude of pH depressions, likely the result of increased urbanization.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".