Water-quality and streamflow datasets used for estimating loads considered for use in the 2002 Midcontinent nutrient SPARROW models, United States and Canada, 1970-2012
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The United States Geological Survey's (USGS) SPAtially Referenced Regressions On Watershed attributes (SPARROW) model was developed to aid in the interpretation of monitoring data and simulate water-quality conditions in streams across large spatial scales. SPARROW is a hybrid empirical⁄process-based mass balance model that can be used to estimate the major sources and environmental factors that affect the long-term supply, transport, and fate of contaminants in streams. The spatially explicit model structure is defined by a river reach network coupled with contributing catchments. The model is calibrated by statistically relating watershed sources and transport-related properties to monitoring-based water-quality load estimates. Load estimates used in recent Midcontinent SPARROW model applications (2002 base year) are described in Saad and others, 2018 (https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20185051). Load estimation methods described in this report include the Beale Ratio Estimator and Fluxmaster models. This USGS data release, prepared in cooperation with the International Joint Commission, contains all of the input and output files necessary to reproduce the load estimates considered for inclusion in the 2002 Midcontinent SPARROW models. Data preparation for input to the load estimation models is also fully described in the above-mentioned report.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.011 |
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".