MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Turkey Lakes Watershed - Stream Water Chemistry

2020· dataset· en· W6926571950 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueGEOSCAN · 2020
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicClassical Antiquity Studies
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWatershedHydrology (agriculture)STREAMSNutrientWater bottleWater chemistrySampling (signal processing)Water quality

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This dataset contains average concentrations of water chemistry collected from stream catchments C31, C32, C33, C34, C35, C37, C38, C39, C42, C46, C47, C49, and C50 in the Turkey Lakes Watershed, approximately 60 km northwest of Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada. These are average concentrations recorded from 1981-2018 in milligrams per litre (mg/L) of major ions (Ca, Mg, K, Na, SO4, Cl, NO3-N, NH4-N) and some nutrients (TP, TN) collected by the Great Lakes Forestry Centre. Samples are collected according to variable schedules such that frequency generally increased with increasing stream flow, (sampling period was shortest during spring runoff, 1-3 days, and longest during winter, 2-3 weeks). Sampling was accomplished by rinsing an appropriately cleaned 2-litre, polyethylene bottle at least 3 times with stream water followed by immersion to collect the final sample. Care was taken to not disturb the stream sediments throughout the sampling procedure. pH and conductivity testing is completed right after sampling. Other chemical analyses are completed by the Great Lakes Forestry Centre in Sault Ste. Marie within 2 weeks of collection. Sample integrity was maintained through storage in the dark at 4 degrees Celsius and analyzed at room temperature.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.924
Threshold uncertainty score0.151

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.017

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.258 · 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
GenreDataset

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGEOSCANSame topicClassical Antiquity StudiesFrench-language works237,207