MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6948951835 · doi:10.5063/f1jh3jkz

A global database of chlorophyll and water chemistry in freshwater lakes

2020· dataset· en· W6948951835 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueCalifornia Digital Library · 2020
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier UniversityYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWater qualityChlorophyll aGeospatial analysisChlorophyllHydrology (agriculture)Water chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chlorophyll is an important variable used to assess water quality in freshwater lakes around the globe. Using a systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature and online repositories, we compiled a database of chlorophyll values. When available, we also aggregated data on lake morphology and water chemistry. Over 3000 published manuscripts were reviewed and 15 online datasets. We obtained 24,483 unique survey in 9625 lakes and 72 countries. Every survey instance had chlorophyll values, and when available other water chemistry variables such as total phosphorus, total nitrogen, dissoved organic carbon, and dissolved oxygen. Within this database, there are files that correspond to the studies that were examined, lake morphology, water chemistry, chlorophyll concentration, and lake information (e.g. location, country, name). The geospatial coordinates that are supply allow for inclusion of variables with raster data such as climate projections, land use, and topography. This dataset can be used for improving our understanding of freshwater equality in response to global change and for management to improve water quality

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.009
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.013

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCalifornia Digital LibrarySame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207