A continuous classification of the 476,697 lakes of the conterminous <scp>US</scp> based on geographic archetypes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A variety of classification approaches are used to facilitate understanding, prediction, monitoring, and the management of lakes. However, broad‐scale applicability of current approaches is limited by either the need for in situ lake data, incompatibilities among approaches, or a lack of empirical testing of approaches based on ex situ data. We developed a new geographic classification approach for 476,697 lakes ≥ 1 ha in the conterminous U.S. based on lake archetypes representing end members along gradients of multiple geographic features. We identified seven lake archetypes with distinct combinations of climate, hydrologic, geologic, topographic, and morphometric properties. Individual lakes were assigned weights for each of the seven archetypes such that groups of lakes with similar combinations of archetype weights tended to cluster spatially (although not strictly contiguous) and to have similar limnological properties (e.g., concentrations of nutrients, chlorophyll a (Chl a), and dissolved organic carbon). Further, archetype lake classification improved commonly measured limnological relationships (e.g., between nutrients and Chl a) compared to a global model; a discrete archetype classification slightly outperformed an ecoregion classification; and considering lakes as continuous mixtures of archetypes in a more complex model further improved fit. Overall, archetype classification of US lakes as continuous mixtures of geographic features improved understanding and prediction of lake responses to limnological drivers and should help researchers and managers better characterize and forecast lake states and responses to environmental change.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".