MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3217192713 · doi:10.47363/jeesr/2020(2)134

Nutrient Dynamics Buoy (Ndb) Sensor Data and Calibration Report

2020· article· en· W3217192713 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Earth and Environmental Sciences Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Quality Monitoring Technologies
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBuoyCalibrationRemote sensingEnvironmental scienceNitrateNutrientWireless sensor networkPhosphateSurface waterComputer scienceEngineeringGeologyChemistryPhysicsMarine engineeringEnvironmental engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Nutrient Dynamics Buoy (NDB) is currently based on a multi-parameter sonde with 7 sensors and includes an integrated Nitrate Sensor and a Phosphate sensor. It also includes a reference PAR1 sensor mounted at the water surface as well as a submersible PAR1 sensor that is immersed at 2m below the water surface together with the mult-parameter sonde, Nitrate sensor and Phosphate sensor.The multi-parameter sonde monitors the temperature, depth, conductivity, pH, turbidity, chlorophyll and dissolved oxygen. It also has an anti-fouling wiper mechanism that removes any debris that may accumulate on the sensors during extended deployment.The immersed PAR1 sensor also has an anti-fouling wiper mechanism, while the reference PAR1 sensor at the surface has a cover that is opened just before the PAR1 measurements are made and then closed after the measurements have been taken.The readings for these sensors were recorded by a logger mounted in the NDB at the LV1 mooring at station 750 in Lake Ontario. This test report summarizes these results for the deployment during September of 2010.The calibration results for the sensors are included in the appendices.1PAR = Photosynthetically Available Radiation measured between 400nm and 700nm with a constant quanta response.

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)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.258
Threshold uncertainty score0.599

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.135
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Earth and Environmental Sciences ResearchSame topicWater Quality Monitoring TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207