MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153184992 · doi:10.1139/f00-013

Predicting coastal eutrophication in the Baltic: a limnological approach

2000· article· en· W2153184992 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jessica J. Meeuwig, Pirkko Kauppila, Heikki Pitkänen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil and Water Nutrient Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEutrophicationEstuaryEnvironmental scienceChlorophyll aHydrology (agriculture)WatershedEcologyOceanographyNutrientBiologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Coastal eutrophication is a key environmental concern in Finland. A highly indented, well-settled coastline with a myriad of small estuaries means that eutrophication occurs at numerous localities. There is a clear need for general models that predict eutrophication across estuaries. Lake eutrophication has been successfully predicted using a combination of chlorophyll a (Chl) - total phosphorus (TP) regression models and TP mass-balance models. We applied this limnological approach to 19 Finnish estuaries. The Chl-TP regression was highly significant, accounting for 67% of the variation in Chl. When combined with a TP mass-balance equation, log observed and predicted Chl differed by 28% on average. Accuracy was improved by dividing the estuaries into those dominated by non-point-source (NPS) loading (n = 11) and those dominated by point-source (PS) loading (n = 7). A land-use regression model based on percentage of the catchment forested and estuarine mean depth then best predicted Chl in the NPS-dominated estuaries. The mass-balance approach remained the most accurate model for the PS estuaries. The land-use model and mass-balance approach are complementary tools in that their use maximizes accuracy for both NPS- and PS-dominated estuaries. This high level of accuracy demonstrates the relevance of limnological approaches to Finnish estuaries.

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.885

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.179 · 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

Citations54
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicSoil and Water Nutrient DynamicsFrench-language works237,207