MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4294068952 · doi:10.1101/2022.08.29.505280

Agricultural land use and lake morphology explain substantial variation in water quality across Canada

2022· preprint· en· W4294068952 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Joe R. Sánchez Schacht, Paul W. MacKeigan, Zofia E. Taranu, Yannick Huot, Irene Gregory‐Eaves

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAquatic Ecosystems and Phytoplankton Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversité de SherbrookeEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaMcGill University
FundersUniversité de SherbrookeNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMcGill University
KeywordsWater qualityWatershedLand useLand coverContext (archaeology)AgricultureEnvironmental scienceFreshwater ecosystemGeographySpatial variabilityAgricultural landEcosystemHydrology (agriculture)Physical geographyWater resource managementEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Despite decades of research and mitigation efforts, declines in freshwater quality resulting from anthropogenic nutrient input remain a persistent issue worldwide. Canada has the greatest number of freshwater lakes in the world, yet we have a limited understanding of the magnitude and scale at which most lakes have been affected by human activities, namely Land Use/Land Cover (LULC) alterations. In response, the NSERC Canadian Lake Pulse Network has compiled the first nationwide systematic database of lake quality metrics by surveying 664 lakes across 12 ecozones over three years. To assess the influence of catchment development on water quality and its spatial variation, we built models quantifying the association between watershed LULC and water quality. We found that agricultural and urban land use explained the greatest proportion of variation in water quality among LULC categories (R 2 = 0.20–0.29). Overall, our study highlights that drivers of water quality are similar across regions; however, baseline conditions vary, so freshwater ecosystem management strategies must consider their geographic context to better predict where water quality thresholds will be surpassed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicAquatic Ecosystems and Phytoplankton Dynamics→French-language works237,207→