MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2528719985

Management implications of Cladophora resurgence in the Great Lakes

2014· article· en· W2528719985 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anika Kuczynski, Martin Auer

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Commons - Michigan Tech (Michigan Technological University) · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAquatic Invertebrate Ecology and Behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCladophoraEnvironmental scienceGeographyEcologyBiologyAlgae
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cladophora growth is limited by phosphorus (P). P limits in WWTP effluents in the 1970s apparently helped curb previously excessive algal growth, but nuisance conditions have returned since the invasion of dreissenids in the 1990s. The literature speaks of the 'resurgence' of Cladophora, but there is no widely accepted definition of this phenomenon. Nuisance growth, defined here as the amount of biomass available for deposition on beaches, depends on both the growth rate and the colonizable area. Both are ecosystem engineering outcomes of dreissenids, but only P is manageable. Management depends on the dominating factor. Here, we look at biomass densities, tissue P (directly related to the growth rate by Droop), and areal extent as shown by satellite imagery over three time periods: 1) pretreatment, pre-dreissenids (early 1970s); 2) post-treatment, pre-dreissenids (1980s); and 3) post-treatment, post-dreissenids (2000s). Lake Ontario shows no change in biomass density, decreasing tissue P, and increasing colonizable area since the dreissenid invasion. Resurgence is more a function of colonization than nutrient enrichment in this lake, but it is urban influences that allow increases in colonizable substrate to cause the resurgence; the alga does not benefit from increasing available area in P poor regions.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.112
Threshold uncertainty score0.223

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDigital Commons - Michigan Tech (Michigan Technological University)Same topicAquatic Invertebrate Ecology and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207