Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>Recent advances in implementing machine learning (ML) methods in hydrology have given rise to a new, data-driven approach to hydrological modeling. Comparison of physically based and ML approaches has shown that ML methods can achieve a similar accuracy to the physically based ones and outperform them when describing nonlinear relationships. Global ML models have been already successfully applied for modeling hydrological phenomena such as discharge.</p><p>However, a major problem related to large-scale  water quality modeling has been the lack of available observation data with a good spatiotemporal coverage. This has affected the reproducibility of previous studies and the potential improvement of existing models. In addition to the observation data itself, insufficient or poor quality metadata has also discouraged researchers to integrate the already available datasets. Therefore, improving both, the availability, and quality of open water quality data would increase the potential to implement predictive modeling on a global scale.</p><p>We aim to address the aforementioned issues by presenting the new Global River Water Quality Archive (GRQA) by integrating data from five existing global and regional sources:</p><ul><li>Canadian Environmental Sustainability Indicators program (CESI)</li> <li>Global Freshwater Quality Database (GEMStat)</li> <li>GLObal RIver Chemistry database (GLORICH)</li> <li>European Environment Agency (Waterbase)</li> <li>USGS Water Quality Portal (WQP)</li> </ul><p>The resulting dataset contains a total of over 14 million observations for 41 different forms of some of the most important water quality parameters, focusing on nutrients, carbon, oxygen and sediments. Supplementary metadata and statistics are provided with the observation time series to improve the usability of the dataset. We report on developing a harmonized schema and reproducible workflow that can be adapted to integrate and harmonize further data sources. We conclude our study with a call for action to extend this dataset and hope that the provided reproducible method of data integration and metadata provenance shall lead as an example.</p>
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.006 |
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 it