MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7102407785 · doi:10.25976/bu80-h462

South Saskatchewan River Basin nitrate source isotope tracing

2025· dataset· en· W7102407785 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDataStream · 2025
Typedataset
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTributaryDrainage basinNitrateHydrology (agriculture)EffluentNonpoint source pollutionNutrientStable isotope ratio

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research project sampled 17 mainstem sites of the Bow River and Oldman River, part of the South Saskatchewan River basin in Alberta, during high and low discharge periods in 2014 and 2015. Riverine nitrate and boron concentrations, mean daily flux, major ion chemistry, and stable isotope measurements of nitrogen-15 of nitrate, oxygen-18 of nitrate, and boron-11 of dissolved boron were determined and compared against results for effluent from seven local wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs), eight synthetic fertilizers, cow manure, and three predominantly agricultural tributary sites to estimate point and non-point nitrate sources using a combined isotope tracing approach. Only river mainstem and tributary chemistry is included in this dataset, please contact the data steward for more data including point and non-point sources. The results of the study indicated WWTP effluent was the key nutrient source in the Bow River downstream of Calgary and manure-derived nutrients affect the Bow and Oldman Rivers in agricultural regions. Overall, boron was proven to be an effective co-tracer for discriminating between urban and agricultural sources of nitrate in a large, mixed-use watershed. We would like to acknowledge co-authors Dr. Bernhard Mayer and Michael Nightingale of the University of Calgary Applied Geochemistry Group and Dr. Patrick Laceby of Alberta Environment and Protected Areas for their significant contributions to this research. We are grateful to Steve Taylor, Jesusa Pontoy, Andrew Kingston, Kerri Miller, and Michael Wieser who provided laboratory analysis expertise and assistance. We would also like to thank Veronique Lajciak (Fau) and Nadine Taube who assisted with field logistics and collection of water samples. This study was supported by a NSERC Discovery Grant awarded to Bernhard Mayer.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.093

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.238 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDataStreamFrench-language works237,207