MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3025785588 · doi:10.13227/j.hjkx.201610183

[Comparison of Relationship Between Conduction and Algal Bloom in Pengxi River and Modao River in Three Gorges Reservoir].

2017· article· en· W3025785588 on OpenAlexaff
Wei Jiang, Chuan Zhou, Daobin Ji, Defu Liu, Yu-Shuang Ren, Haffner Douglas, Deti Xie, Lei Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAquatic Ecosystems and Phytoplankton Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTributaryEpilimnionEutrophicationHydrology (agriculture)Spring (device)HypolimnionThermoclineEnvironmental scienceAlgal bloomChlorophyll aBloomWater qualityYangtze riverPhytoplanktonOceanographyEcologyGeologyNutrientGeographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

in summer respectively. Nutrients concentrations showed no significant correlation with Chl-a. On the other hand, conductivity value and trend were totally different between the two rivers:in Modao River in spring, the conductivity in upstream was only 75% of that in the main stream of the Yangtze River, and the backwater from the main stream reached to the middle in Modao river, where the highest Chl-a among all the river sampling sites was detected; summer conductivity distribution was similar with that in spring. Different from Modao River, the conductivity in upstream of Pengxi River in spring was 150% of that in the main stream of Yangtze, the backwater from the main stream reached area between sampling sites of PX04 and PX05 (upper than the middle reach); its upstream had significantly high content of Chl-a and conductivity, and these two factors were significantly positively correlated. The study showed that other than N and P, other ions in the Pengxi River played an important role in bursting "bloom", and need to be considered regarding bloom control.

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)0.000
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 score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicAquatic Ecosystems and Phytoplankton Dynamics→French-language works237,207→