MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2383702232 · doi:10.1080/14634988.2016.1165035

Physical processes affecting water quality in Hamilton Harbour

2016· article· en· W2383702232 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueAquatic Ecosystem Health & Management · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Quality and Pollution Assessment
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHarbourHypolimnionSeicheWater qualityEnvironmental scienceOceanographyHydrology (agriculture)EutrophicationEcologyGeologyBiologyNutrient

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article presents an overview of selected physical processes and their effects on water quality in Hamilton Harbour. An understanding of circulation and mixing processes are essential to assess the fate and transport of water quality constituents in Hamilton Harbour. Water level measurements showed that in addition to harbour and lake seiches, the Helholtz mode, due to pumping action from Lake Ontario, is important in generating harbour water movements while the circulation patterns in the open waters of the harbour are influenced by prevailing winds. In general, the mean summer circulation consists of two counter-rotating gyres occupying the harbour. Hamilton Harbour physical processes are further characterized by substantial water exchanges with Lake Ontario. These exchange flows play a major role in determining the retention time of the harbour, thereby exerting a large influence on water quality, including hypolimnetic dissolved oxygen concentrations.

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 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)0.003
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.435
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
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)0.0000.003

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.289 · 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