Evaluating the suitability of large-scale datasets to estimate nitrogen loads and yields across different spatial scales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Decision makers are often confronted with inadequate information to predict nutrient loads and yields in freshwater ecosystems at large spatial scales. We evaluate the potential of using data mapped at large spatial scales (regional to global) and often coarse resolution to predict nitrogen yields at varying smaller scales (e.g., at the catchment and stream reach level). We applied the SPAtially Referenced Regression On Watershed attributes (SPARROW) model in three regions: the Upper Midwest part of the United States, New Zealand, and the Grande River Basin in southeastern Brazil. For each region, we compared predictions of nitrogen delivery between models developed using novel large-scale datasets and those developed using local-scale datasets. Large-scale models tended to underperform the local-scale models in poorly monitored areas. Despite this, large-scale models are well suited to generate hypotheses about relative effects of different nutrient source categories (point and urban, agricultural, native vegetation) and to identify knowledge gaps across spatial scales when data are scarce. Regardless of the spatial resolution of the predictors used in the models, a representative network of water quality monitoring stations is key to improve the performance of large-scale models used to estimate loads and yields. We discuss avenues of research to understand how this large-scale modelling approach can improve decision making for managing catchments at local scales, particularly in data poor regions.
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 | 0.014 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".