MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406016738 · doi:10.1038/s41467-024-55714-9

Restoring small water bodies to improve lake and river water quality in China

2025· article· en· W4406016738 on OpenAlexaff
Wangzheng Shen, Liang Zhang, Emily A. Ury, Sisi Li, Biqing Xia, N. B. Basu

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaChina Scholarship CouncilNatural Science Foundation of Hubei ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsWater qualityChinaEnvironmental scienceAgricultureNutrientPopulationWater resource managementGeographyEcologyEnvironmental healthBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Climate change, population growth, and agricultural intensification are increasing nitrogen (N) inputs, while driving the loss of inland water bodies that filter excess N. However, the interplay between N inputs and water body dynamics, and its implications for water quality remain poorly understood. Analyzing data from 1995 to 2015 across China, here, we find a 71% reduction in the area of small (<10 4.5 m 2 ) water bodies (SWB), primarily in high-N-input agricultural regions. Preferential loss of SWBs, the most efficient nutrient filters, places 42% of China at high water quality risk due to increasing N inputs and declining SWB density. Currently, N removal by water bodies is 986 kilotonnes year −1 , but restoring 2.3 million hectares of SWB could increase removal by 21%, compared to just 5% for equivalent restoration of large water bodies. Targeted SWB restoration is crucial for improving water quality and mitigating N pollution in China.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.119

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.286
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

Citations41
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature CommunicationsSame topicHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207