Structural Equation Model of Total Phosphorus Loads in the Red River of the North Basin, USA and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Attribution of the causes of trends in nutrient loading is often limited to correlation, qualitative reasoning, or references to the work of others. This paper represents efforts to improve causal attribution of water‐quality changes. The Red River of the North basin provides a regional test case because of international interest in the reduction of total phosphorus loads and the availability of long‐term total phosphorus data and ancillary geospatial data with the potential to explain changes in water quality over time. The objectives of the study are to investigate structural equation modeling methods for application to water‐quality problems and to test causal hypotheses related to the drivers of total phosphorus loads over the period 1970 to 2012. Multiple working hypotheses that explain total phosphorus loads and methods for estimating missing ancillary data were developed, and water‐quality related challenges to structural equation modeling (including skewed data and scaling issues) were addressed. The model indicates that increased precipitation in season 1 (November–February) or season 2 (March–June) would increase total phosphorus loads in the basin. The effect of agricultural practices on total phosphorus loads was significant, although the effect is about one‐third of the effect of season 1 precipitation. The structural equation model representing loads at six sites in the basin shows that climate and agricultural practices explain almost 60% of the annual total phosphorus load in the Red River of the North basin. The modeling process and the unexplained variance highlight the need for better ancillary long‐term data for causal assessments. Core Ideas Multiple working hypotheses for the causes of total phosphorus loads were developed. Challenges associated with water‐quality and related ancillary data are addressed. Hypotheses with appropriate data were tested with structural equation modeling. Climate and agricultural practices explain 57% of the variation in the load. Climate has a greater effect on P loads than do agricultural practices.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".