MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400007540 · doi:10.1139/facets-2023-0134

Seasonal patterns and key chemical predictors of dissolved greenhouse gases in small prairie pothole ponds

2024· article· en· W4400007540 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Lauren T. Miranda, Colin J. Whitfield

Bibliographic record

VenueFACETS · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal ecosystems
Canadian institutionsGlobal Institute for Water SecurityUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPothole (geology)Environmental scienceKey (lock)Greenhouse gasEnvironmental chemistryHydrology (agriculture)EcologyChemistryBiologyEngineeringGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Shallow ponds can provide ideal conditions for production of greenhouse gases (GHGs) carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), methane (CH 4 ), and nitrous oxide (N 2 O), and thus are important to include in global and regional GHG budgets. The Canadian Prairie Pothole Region contains millions of shallow natural ponds, and we investigated GHG dynamics in 145 ponds across the region. Ponds were consistently supersaturated with CH 4 , often supersaturated with CO 2 (57% occurrence), and often undersaturated with N 2 O (65% occurrence). Spring measurements showed higher N 2 O saturation ( p = 0.0037) than summer, while summer had higher CH 4 ( p < 0.001) and CO 2 ( p = 0.023) saturation than spring. Ponds exhibited large physicochemical variation, yet sulfate concentration and pH were strong predictors of dissolved CH 4 and CO 2 , respectively. No predictor was identified for N 2 O. The link between sulfate and CH 4 has important implications as dissolved CH 4 in low sulfate (<178 mg L −1 ) systems was much more responsive to changes in temperature. This research fills an important knowledge gap about the GHG dynamics of prairie pothole ponds and the role of water chemistry for diffuse GHG release. Our work can also be used in ongoing efforts to describe ecosystem services (or disservices) assigned to ponds in this agriculture-dominated region.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.975

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations9
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFACETSSame topicMarine and coastal ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207