MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3110621408 · doi:10.3390/w12123381

Warming of Near-Surface Summer Water Temperatures in Lakes of the Conterminous United States

2020· article· en· W3110621408 on OpenAlexaff
Roger W. Bachmann, Daniel E. Canfield, Sapna Sharma, Vincent Lecours

Bibliographic record

VenueWater · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceLatitudeClimate changeSurface waterElevation (ballistics)Hydrology (agriculture)ClimatologyPeriod (music)Atmospheric sciencesGeographyGeologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Because warming water temperatures have widespread consequences for freshwater communities, we were interested in estimating the patterns and rates of change of near-surface summer water temperatures in United States lakes. We developed multiple regression models to relate daily surface water temperatures in lakes of the conterminous United States to 8-day average air temperatures, latitude, elevation, and sampling month and year using data from 5723 lake samples in the months of June-September during the period 1981–2018. Our model explained 79% of the variation with a root-mean-square error of 1.69 °C. We predicted monthly average near-surface water temperatures for 1033 lakes for each year from 1981 through 2018. Lakes across the conterminous United States have been warming for the period 1981–2018 at an average heating rate of 0.32 °C per decade for the summer months (June–September). The average summer warming from 1981–2018 would be the equivalent of a lake decreasing 259 m in elevation or moving 233 km south. On the basis of national air temperatures starting in 1895, it was inferred that lake water temperatures are variable from year to year and have been steadily increasing since 1964, but that maximum temperatures in the 1930s were just as warm as those in 2008–2018.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.499
Threshold uncertainty score0.605

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Citations14
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWaterSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207