MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411240959 · doi:10.1680/jenes.24.00061

Cascade reservoirs on nitrogen fractions in upper Mekong sediments against natural river

2025· article· en· W4411240959 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jinyun Tang, Zhengjian Yang, Jun Ma, Yaqian Xu, Jingzhi Yu, Zhangpeng Wang, Zeyi Tao

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Engineering and Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Hubei ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsNatural (archaeology)Environmental scienceMekong riverNitrogenEnvironmental chemistryCascadeGeologyHydrology (agriculture)ChemistryGeomorphologyChromatographyPaleontologyGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The construction of cascade hydropower dams in the Lancang River Basin of Southwest China significantly affects sediment nitrogen fractions. To assess these impacts, we contrasted the dammed Lancang River with the undammed Nujiang River. Using the recommended Ruttenberg sequential extraction process, we determined five nitrogen fractions: free nitrogen (F-N), exchangeable nitrogen (Ex-N), carbonate-associated nitrogen (CO3-N), ironmanganese oxides-bound nitrogen (IM-N), and organic nitrogen (Org-N). There were considerable differences between the properties of sediments across the two rivers and had their effects on nitrogen fraction distribution. The cascade reservoirs possessed higher levels of transferable nitrogen (TranN) and total inorganic nitrogen (TIN) than the natural river section. Nitrogen composition in the natural river was as per Org-N > CO3-N > IM-N > Ex-N > F-N, but at certain points in reservoirs, it altered to Org-N > IM-N > CO3-N > Ex-N > F-N. This means that cascade reservoirs favor the release of nitrogen and enhance bioavailable nitrogen. Dynamics of nitrogen fractions depend on environmental factors such as altered water level, reduced flow velocity, silt interception, resuspension of sediment, particle-size distribution, and mineral composition, and axis I explains over 70% of variance.

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 score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.079

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental Engineering and ScienceSame topicHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207