Self‐diagnosis of model suitability for continuous measurements of stream‐dissolved organic carbon derived from in situ <scp>UV</scp>–visible spectroscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".