MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4391234896 · doi:10.1016/j.jglr.2024.102293

Remote sensing of cyanobacterial blooms in Lake Champlain with a focus on Missisquoi Bay

2024· article· en· W4391234896 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Timothy T. Wynne

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Great Lakes Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAquatic Ecosystems and Phytoplankton Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBayOceanographyFocus (optics)Algal bloomEnvironmental scienceRemote sensingGeologyPhytoplanktonEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At 1270 km2, Lake Champlain, is the 13th largest lake in the United States. Lake Champlain experiences annual blooms of cyanobacteria, particularly in Missisquoi Bay. Here the Cyanobacteria Index, a previously published algorithm, was applied to satellite imagery from OLCI (available from 2016 through the present) and MODIS (available from 2000-present). The remotely sensed timeseries of the CI was derived and described from each sensor, along with cross-calibration among OLCI and MODIS. The resultant timeseries described when and where cyanobacteria blooms generally occur. Five distinct regions of Lake Champlain were considered for analysis: Malletts Bay, the Northeast Arm, Saint Albans Bay, Missisquoi Bay, and the Main Lake. Saint Albans and Missisquoi Bay were the only basins shown to have consistent cyanobacteria blooms. Saint Albans Bay, due to its small size was not an ideal fit for the methods used here, and the focus of this manuscript was Missisquoi Bay. The objective of this study is to explore the interannual variability of blooms in Missisquoi Bay and compare the variability to cyanobacteria blooms in Lake Erie, Saginaw Bay, and Green Bay. The blooms in Missisquoi Bay showed interannual variability in size, intensity, and start and end date. Observed data from the Burlington International Airport and modeled data from NASA’s Giovanni program were used in an effort to explain this bloom variability. A 2-parameter multiple regression model fit the cyanobacterial data well and showed that the interannual variability of blooms in Missisquoi Bay are a function of atmospheric instability and temperature.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.544
Threshold uncertainty score0.918

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.271 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Great Lakes Research→Same topicAquatic Ecosystems and Phytoplankton Dynamics→French-language works237,207→