MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3012183095 · doi:10.1029/2020gl087051

Is the River a Chemostat?: Scale Versus Land Use Controls on Nitrate Concentration‐Discharge Dynamics in the Upper Mississippi River Basin

2020· article· en· W3012183095 on OpenAlexafffund
Richard E. Marinos, K. J. Van Meter, N. B. Basu

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil and Water Nutrient Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDrainage basinEnvironmental scienceStructural basinHydrology (agriculture)DischargeNitrateLand useTile drainageSpatial ecologyGeologySoil scienceEcologySoil waterGeomorphologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Upper Mississippi River Basin is the largest source of reactive nitrogen (N) to the Gulf of Mexico. Concentration‐discharge (C‐Q) relationships offer a means to understand both the terrestrial sources that generate this reactive N and the in‐stream processes that transform it. Progress has been made on identifying land use controls on C‐Q dynamics. However, the impact of basin size and river network structure on C‐Q relationships is not well characterized. Here, we show, using high‐resolution nitrate concentration data, that tile drainage is a dominant control on C‐Q dynamics, with increasing drainage density contributing to more chemostatic C‐Q behavior. We further find that concentration variability increases, relative to discharge variability, with increasing basin size across six orders of magnitude, and this pattern is attributed to different spatial correlation structures for C and Q. Our results show how land use and river network structure jointly control riverine N export.

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 score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.141

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations54
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicSoil and Water Nutrient DynamicsFrench-language works237,207