MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2791329355

Eutrophication in Northwestern Ontario? The unique case study of Cloud Lake

2017· dissertation· en· W2791329355 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nathan Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueKnowledge Commons (Lakehead University) · 2017
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAquatic Ecosystems and Phytoplankton Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCloud computingEutrophicationGeographyEnvironmental scienceOceanographyPolitical scienceGeologyEcologyBiologyLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis investigates freshwater lake classification in Northwestern Ontario, Canada. The research is based on a case study of Cloud Lake, 40km south of Thunder Bay Ontario, Canada. Complaints of decreasing water quality brought attention to the need for a detailed assessment of the current conditions on Cloud Lake. The purpose of this thesis was to determine Cloud Lake?s present trophic state based on two currently implemented trophic state indexing (TSI) methods, (Carlson?s TSI, and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Changes).
\nThis thesis provides biological, chemical, and physical evidence that Cloud Lake?s water quality is a serious concern. Cloud Lake is a mesotrophic lake with confirmed occurrences of toxin producing cyanobacteria. The results underlie a misconception within current monitoring of inland lakes located within Northwestern Ontario that environmental conditions are pristine. Therefore, lakes in the geographic region should all be oligotrophic. Despite the absence of significant anthropogenic inputs (i.e. agricultural or urban development) Cloud Lake demonstrates a number of symptoms associated with eutrophication in larger, more developed lakes that relate to internal loading being a dynamic factor. The thesis provides recommendations for future monitoring and research to better understand the complex causes of eutrophication in Cloud Lake.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.797
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKnowledge Commons (Lakehead University)Same topicAquatic Ecosystems and Phytoplankton DynamicsFrench-language works237,207