MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2140540782 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2013-0300

Unexpected declines in stream phosphorus concentrations across southern Ontario

2013· article· en· W2140540782 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Shanel M. Raney, M. Catherine Eimers

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil and Water Nutrient Dynamics
Canadian institutionsTrent University
FundersMinistry of Environment
KeywordsImpervious surfaceSTREAMSEnvironmental sciencePhosphorusEffluentHydrology (agriculture)Agricultural landEcologyLand useBiologyEnvironmental engineeringChemistryGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Long-term trends (1975–2010) in total phosphorus (TP) concentrations were evaluated at 113 stream stations across southern Ontario. Declines in TP were evident at the majority of sites (68%), including those both with (n = 49) and without (n = 64) upstream municipal wastewater treatment plants (MWWTP). Although declines in TP at stream stations downstream of MWWTPs may be attributed to improvements in P removal from treated effluent, declines at the remaining streams must be attributed to other causes. During the same time period, increases in chloride (Cl−) were observed at almost all (95%) of the 64 MWWTP-free stations. Over the past 35 years, urban land cover has increased at the expense of agricultural land area in Ontario, with the majority of these changes occurring in southern Ontario. The coincidence of declines in TP and increases in Cl− at the 64 MWWTP-free streams suggests that the two may be related, with P-rich agricultural fields being replaced with impervious surfaces and therefore increased road salt applications.

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 score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.113

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations22
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences→Same topicSoil and Water Nutrient Dynamics→French-language works237,207→