MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163025476 · doi:10.1071/en09090

Quantification of natural DOM from UV absorption at two wavelengths

2009· article· en· W2163025476 on OpenAlexaffabout
Edward Tipping, Heather T. Corbishley, Jean-François Koprivnjak, Dan Lapworth, Matthew P. Miller, Colin Vincent, John Hamilton−Taylor

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Chemistry · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal ecosystems
Canadian institutionsTrent University
FundersNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UK
KeywordsDissolved organic carbonAbsorbanceContext (archaeology)Surface waterWavelengthWater qualityFractionationEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental chemistryAbsorption (acoustics)PopulationChemistryEcologyChromatographyEnvironmental engineeringMaterials scienceGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Environmental context. Dissolved organic matter (DOM) is part of the global carbon cycle, ecologically and geochemically active, and costly to remove in water treatment. Spectroscopic monitoring at a single wavelength provides some indication of DOM concentration, but variations in optical properties mean that accurate determinations currently rely on slow and costly laboratory methods. We show that for water samples containing non-anthropogenic DOM, ultraviolet absorbance at two wavelengths can quantify DOM rapidly, cheaply and accurately, and also indicate its quality. Abstract. The precise simulation of ultraviolet absorption by 23 contrasting surface-water DOM samples was achieved with a model based on two components, one absorbing light strongly (A) and the other weakly (B). The parameterised model can be used to predict [DOC] in water samples simply from absorbance values at two wavelengths, while information on DOM quality is provided by the calculated fractionation into A and B. The model was tested by predicting [DOC] for a separate dataset obtained by combining results for 12 samples each from surface waters in the UK, Canada and the USA, and from UK groundwaters. A close correlation (R2 = 0.997) was obtained, with only slight underestimation of the true [DOC]. The proportions of components A and B varied considerably among the sites, which explains why precise prediction of [DOC] from absorbance data at a single wavelength was not possible. When the model was applied to samples collected from river locations in a heterogeneous UK catchment with areas of industry and high human population, [DOC] was underestimated in many cases, which may indicate the presence of non-absorbing pollutant DOM.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.471
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

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)0.0060.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.176
Teacher spread0.171 · 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.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations83
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental ChemistrySame topicMarine and coastal ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207