Long-Term and Seasonal Trends of Wastewater Chemicals in Lake Mead: An Introduction to Time Series Decomposition
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A recent paper published time series of concentrations of chemicals in drinking water collected from the bottom of Lake Mead, a major American water supply reservoir. Data were compared to water level using only linear regression. This creates an opportunity for students to analyze these data further. This article presents a structured introduction to time series decomposition that compares long-term and seasonal components of a time series of a single chemical (meprobamate) with those of two supporting datasets (reservoir volume and specific conductance). For the chemical data, this must be preceded by estimation of missing datum points. Results show that linear regression analyses of time series data obscure meaningful detail and that specific conductance is the important predictor of seasonal chemical variations. To learn this, students must execute a linear regression, estimate missing data using local regression, decompose time series, and compare time series using cross-correlation. Complete R code for these exercises appears in the supplementary information. This article uses real data and requires that students make and justify key decisions about the analysis. It can be a guided or an individual project. It is scalable to instructor needs and student interests in ways that are identified clearly in this article.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it