MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150401536 · doi:10.4319/lo.2014.59.1.0167

Quantifying lake allochthonous organic carbon budgets using a simple equilibrium model

2013· article· en· W2150401536 on OpenAlexafffund
Paul C. Hanson, Ishi Buffam, James A. Rusak, Emily H. Stanley, Carl J. Watras

Bibliographic record

VenueLimnology and Oceanography · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal ecosystems
Canadian institutionsMinistry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks
FundersU.S. Geological SurveyGlobal Lake Ecological Observatory NetworkWisconsin Department of Natural Resources
KeywordsHydrology (agriculture)Environmental scienceEcosystemShoreTotal organic carbonMineralization (soil science)WetlandTemperate climateLake ecosystemEcologyGeologySoil scienceOceanographySoil waterBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We quantify the allochthonous organic carbon (OC) budgets for seven north temperate lakes, using diverse information about their land cover, hydrology, and limnological characteristics. We develop a simple equilibrium model within a Bayesian framework that exploits the differences among the lakes to estimate three key rates: aerial loading (A OC ) and wetland loading (W OC ) from adjacent ecosystems and whole‐lake mineralization of OC (RDOC). Combined with observational data, these rates allow for estimates of the total OC loads, mineralization, and sedimentation within lakes and export to downstream ecosystems. A OC was 1.15 g C m −1 (shoreline) d −1 , W OC ranged from 0.72 to 3.00 g C m −1 (shoreline) d −1 , and RDOC, normalized to 20°C, ranged from 0.00083 to 0.0015 d −1 . Total loads ranged from about 5 to 55 g C m −2 yr −1 . Ecosystems immediately adjacent to lakes accounted for one‐half or more of total OC loads for some lakes. Whether a lake processed and stored more allochthonous OC than it exported depended primarily on hydrologic residence time. Our equilibrium model provides a parsimonious approach to quantifying allochthonous OC budgets in lakes with relatively minimal baseline data.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.856
Threshold uncertainty score0.647

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations56
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLimnology and OceanographySame topicMarine and coastal ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207