Less is more? A novel method for identifying and evaluating non-informative tracers in sediment source mixing models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose Accelerated soil erosion poses a global hazard to soil health. Understanding soil and sediment behaviour through sediment fingerprinting enables the monitoring and identification of areas with high sediment delivery. Land-use specific sediment source apportionment is increasingly determined using the Bayesian mixing model MixSIAR with compound-specific stable isotopes (CSSI). Here, we investigate CSSIs of fatty acid (FA) tracer selection with a novel method to identify and investigate the effect of non-informative tracers on model performance. Methods To evaluate CSSI tracer selection, mathematical mixtures were generated using source soils (n = 28) from the Rhine catchment upstream of Basel (Switzerland). Using the continuous ranked probability (CRP) skill score, MixSIAR’s performance was evaluated for 11 combinations of FAs and 15 combinations of FAs with δ15N as a mixing line offset tracer. A novel scaling and discrimination analysis (SDA) was also developed to identify tracers with non-unique mixing spaces. Results FA only tracer combinations overestimated pasture contributions while underestimating arable contributions. When compared to models with only FA tracers, utilizing δ15N to offset the mixing line resulted in a 28% improvement in the CRP skill score. δ15N + δ13C FA26 was the optimal tracer set resulting in a 62% model improvement relative to δ15N + all δ13C FAs. The novel SDA method demonstrated how δ13C FA tracers have a non-unique mixing space and thus behave as non-informative tracers. Importantly, the inclusion of non-informative tracers decreased model performance. Conclusions These results indicate that MixSIAR did not handle non-informative CSSI tracers effectively. Accordingly, it may be advantageous to remove non-informative tracers, and where feasible, all combinations and permutations of tracers should be assessed to optimize tracer selection. Application of these tracer selection steps can help improve and advance the performance of sediment fingerprinting models and ultimately aid in improving erosion mitigation and management strategies.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".