MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2543061695 · doi:10.3390/w8110485

Analysis of the Impacts of Man-Made Features on the Stationarity and Dependence of Monthly Mean Maximum and Minimum Water Levels in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River of North America

2016· article· en· W2543061695 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ali A. Assani

Bibliographic record

VenueWater · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceDredgingHydrology (agriculture)Water levelClimate changeCopula (linguistics)Physical geographyClimatologyGeographyOceanographyGeologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Various manmade features (diversions, dredging, regulation, etc.) have affected water levels in the Great Lakes and their outlets since the 19th century. The goal of this study is to analyze the impacts of such features on the stationarity and dependence between monthly mean maximum and minimum water levels in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River from 1919 to 2012. As far as stationarity is concerned, the Lombard method brought out shifts in mean and variance values of monthly mean water levels in Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River related to regulation of these waterbodies in the wake of the digging of the St. Lawrence Seaway in the mid-1950s. Water level shifts in the other lakes are linked to climate variability. As for the dependence between water levels, the copula method revealed a change in dependence mainly between Lakes Erie and Ontario following regulation of monthly mean maximum and minimum water levels in the latter. The impacts of manmade features primarily affected the temporal variability of monthly mean water levels in Lake Ontario.

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)0.002
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 score0.745
Threshold uncertainty score0.507

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWaterSame topicHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207