Predicting Imminent Cyanobacterial Blooms in Lakes Using Incomplete Timely Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Toxic cyanobacterial blooms (CBs) are becoming more frequent globally, posing a threat to freshwater ecosystems. While making long‐range forecasts is overly challenging, predicting imminent CBs is possible from precise monitoring data of the underlying covariates. It is, however, infeasibly costly to conduct precise monitoring on a large scale, leaving most lakes unmonitored or only partially monitored. The challenge is hence to build a predictive model that can use the incomplete, partially‐monitored data to make near‐future CB predictions. By using 30 years of monitoring data for 78 water bodies in Alberta, Canada, combined with data of watershed characteristics (including natural land cover and anthropogenic land use) and meteorological conditions, we train a Bayesian network that predicts future 2‐week CB with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.83. The only monitoring data that the model needs to reach this level of accuracy are whether the cell count and Secchi depth are low, medium, or high, which can be estimated by advanced high‐resolution imaging technology or trained local citizens. The model is robust against missing values as in the absence of any single covariate, it performs with an AUC of at least 0.78. While taking a major step toward reduced‐cost, less data‐intensive CB forecasting, our results identify those key covariates that are worth the monitoring investment for highly accurate predictions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".