Light backscattering in turbid freshwater: a laboratory investigation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship between backscattering and inorganic sediment concentration was examined in a controlled laboratory setting. Different concentrations of two sediment sizes (clay/silt and medium sand) of marine clay deposition were added separately in an opaque black tank containing 500 l of distilled water. The experiment used two optical Environmental Characterization Optics-Backscattering sensors to quantify backscattering in m−1 and NTU. Increasing backscatter coefficients (maximum 5.3 m−1) were observed with increasing suspended particulate concentrations up to 272 and 412 mg l−1 for clay/silt and medium sand, respectively. This demonstrates that a greater range of backscattering values can be measured for highly turbid waters than previously measured in situ. Mass-specific backscattering values for clay/silt (0.02 m2 g−1) are on average higher than for medium sand (0.014 m2 g−1). Although the backscattering ratio [b˜bp(λ)] and refractive index calculated are in accordance with the literature, it is worth noting that the difference in particle size does not exclude differences in matter composition, shape, and other physical factors that contribute to b˜bp variation. The results suggest that further investigation of inorganic optical properties affecting particle size as well as matter composition is required in a controlled environment.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it