MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379924608 · doi:10.1002/lom3.10559

Self‐diagnosis of model suitability for continuous measurements of stream‐dissolved organic carbon derived from in situ <scp>UV</scp>–visible spectroscopy

2023· article· en· W4379924608 on OpenAlexafffund
Christian Gaviria Salazar, Alan Roebuck, Allison Myers‐Pigg, Susan E. Ziegler

Bibliographic record

VenueLimnology and Oceanography Methods · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Quality Monitoring and Analysis
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNatural Resources CanadaU.S. Forest ServiceCanadian Forest ServiceNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsDissolved organic carbonMean squared errorEnvironmental sciencePartial least squares regressionRandom forestCoefficient of determinationIn situStatisticsHydrology (agriculture)MathematicsChemistryEnvironmental chemistryMeteorologyComputer scienceGeologyArtificial intelligenceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Application of high‐frequency monitoring of dissolved organic carbon (DOC) is difficult in instances where training datasets are challenging to develop (e.g., remote locations) and the relationship between optical features and DOC concentration changes due to environmental or landscape shifts (e.g., climate or land‐use change). We developed and compared three partial least squares (PLS) models using in situ water level measurements, conductivity, and UV–Vis spectral attenuation to predict DOC. Two site‐specific models were developed using data from a hillslope‐dominated forest or a low‐relief wetland‐pond‐dominated stream catchment. The third model, using data from both sites, exhibited the best performance (DOC range = 4–15.5 mg C L−1, mean = 8.38 mg C L−1, training RMSE = 0.34 mg C L−1, internal validation RMSE = 0.50 mg C L−1, external validation RMSE = 2.43 mg C L−1). We further demonstrate using PLS model statistics to monitor performance and elucidate when and how models should be updated. These statistics, Hotelling's T2 and squared prediction errors, are useful consistency checks for the predictions made and detect underlying inconsistencies that, if undetected, can reduce the robustness of DOC prediction. For example, via the T2 statistic, we identified the summer–autumn transition as a period when DOC composition differed from what was represented in the training dataset. We also determined that elevated SUVA254 values contributed to the overall bias observed in predictions made during the subsequent year as part of the external validation. This enabled the application of a bias correction that reduced the RMSE from 2.43 to 0.89 mg C L−1. The method presented here could be applied to future monitoring programs enabling model updates to monitor DOC fluxes accurately from optical datasets (e.g., attenuance or fluorescence) in the face of developing datasets in remote locations or environmental change. Implementation of this approach may also identify possible regime shifts or landscape and hydrologic change associated with climate and other environmental changes relevant to terrestrial to aquatic fluxes.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLimnology and Oceanography MethodsSame topicWater Quality Monitoring and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207