MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2172718636 · doi:10.1579/0044-7447-32.3.244

Dynamic Modelling of Recovery from Acidification of Lakes in Killarney Park, Ontario, Canada

2003· article· en· W2172718636 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Thorjørn Larssen, Christine Brereton, John M. Gunn

Bibliographic record

VenueAMBIO · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Quality and Pollution Assessment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcid depositionAcid rainEnvironmental scienceSulfateWater qualityDeposition (geology)SulfurNational parkEnvironmental chemistrySmeltingHydrology (agriculture)ChemistryEcologyGeologySedimentGeographyArchaeologySoil scienceSoil water

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During much of the 1900s, the lakes in Killarney Provincial Park have been exposed to high levels of acid deposition due to sulfur emissions from the nearby metal smelters in Sudbury. The sulfur emissions from this large point source have decreased to about 10% of what they were in the 1960s. Lake water quality in Killarney Park has greatly changed in response to reduced emissions, with noticeable declines in sulfate, aluminum and calcium concentrations. Here we apply the dynamic acidification model MAGIC to 3 lakes in Killarney Park. The lakes, which have different buffering capacities and response times, were selected to represent fast, intermediate and slow recovery from acidification. The model was calibrated to match observed data for the lakes and 4 different forecast scenarios for future sulfur deposition reductions were applied. The results indicate that there is still a large potential for improvement in the water quality in Killarney. The recovery time for the different lakes varies greatly. For the lake having the slowest response time several decades are needed for the chemistry to stabilize after implementation of deposition reductions.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.439
Threshold uncertainty score0.801

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations14
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAMBIOSame topicWater Quality and Pollution AssessmentFrench-language works237,207