Challenges of predicting gas transfer velocity from wind measurements over global lakes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Estimating air–water gas transfer velocities ( k ) is integral to understand biogeochemical and ecological processes in aquatic systems. In lakes, k is commonly predicted using wind-based empirical models, however, their predictive performance under conditions that differ from their original calibration remains largely unassessed. Here, we collected 2222 published k estimates derived from various methods in 46 globally distributed lakes to (1) evaluate the predictions of a selection of six available wind-speed based k models for lakes and (2) explore and develop new empirical models to predict k over global lakes. We found that selected k models generally performed poorly in predicting k in lakes. Model predictions were more accurate than simply assuming a mean k in only 2–39% of all lakes, however, we could not identify with confidence the specific conditions in which some models outperformed others. We developed new wind-based models in which additional variables describing the spatial coverage of k estimates and the lake size and shape had a significant effect on the wind speed- k relationship. Although these new models did not fit the global dataset significantly better than previous k models, they generate overall less biased predictions for global lakes. We further provide explicit estimates of prediction errors that integrate methodological and lake-specific uncertainties. Our results highlight the potential limits when using wind-based models to predict k across lakes and urge scientists to properly account for prediction errors, or measure k directly in the field whenever possible.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".