MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2998277656 · doi:10.1002/lol2.10134

Increasing accuracy of lake nutrient predictions in thousands of lakes by leveraging water clarity data

2019· article· en· W2998277656 on OpenAlexaff
Tyler Wagner, Noah R. Lottig, Meridith L. Bartley, Ephraim M. Hanks, Erin M. Schliep, Nathan B. Wikle, Katelyn King, Ian M. McCullough, Jemma Stachelek, Kendra Spence Cheruvelil, Christopher T. Filstrup, Jean‐François Lapierre, Boyang Liu, Patricia A. Soranno, Pang‐Ning Tan, Qi Wang, Katherine E. Webster, Jiayu Zhou

Bibliographic record

VenueLimnology and Oceanography Letters · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAquatic Ecosystems and Phytoplankton Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsCLARITYNutrientEnvironmental scienceLeverage (statistics)Chlorophyll aHydrology (agriculture)EcologyStatisticsMathematicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Aquatic scientists require robust, accurate information about nutrient concentrations and indicators of algal biomass in unsampled lakes in order to understand and predict the effects of global climate and land‐use change. Historically, lake and landscape characteristics have been used as predictor variables in regression models to generate nutrient predictions, but often with significant uncertainty. An alternative approach to improve predictions is to leverage the observed relationship between water clarity and nutrients, which is possible because water clarity is more commonly measured than lake nutrients. We used a joint‐nutrient model that conditioned predictions of total phosphorus, nitrogen, and chlorophyll a on observed water clarity. Our results demonstrated substantial reductions (8–27%; median = 23%) in prediction error when conditioning on water clarity. These models will provide new opportunities for predicting nutrient concentrations of unsampled lakes across broad spatial scales with reduced uncertainty.

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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.303

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations12
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLimnology and Oceanography LettersSame topicAquatic Ecosystems and Phytoplankton DynamicsFrench-language works237,207