Challenges of modeling depth‐integrated marine primary productivity over multiple decades: A case study at BATS and HOT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The performance of 36 models (22 ocean color models and 14 biogeochemical ocean circulation models (BOGCMs)) that estimate depth‐integrated marine net primary productivity (NPP) was assessed by comparing their output to in situ 14 C data at the Bermuda Atlantic Time series Study (BATS) and the Hawaii Ocean Time series (HOT) over nearly two decades. Specifically, skill was assessed based on the models' ability to estimate the observed mean, variability, and trends of NPP. At both sites, more than 90% of the models underestimated mean NPP, with the average bias of the BOGCMs being nearly twice that of the ocean color models. However, the difference in overall skill between the best BOGCM and the best ocean color model at each site was not significant. Between 1989 and 2007, in situ NPP at BATS and HOT increased by an average of nearly 2% per year and was positively correlated to the North Pacific Gyre Oscillation index. The majority of ocean color models produced in situ NPP trends that were closer to the observed trends when chlorophyll‐ a was derived from high‐performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), rather than fluorometric or SeaWiFS data. However, this was a function of time such that average trend magnitude was more accurately estimated over longer time periods. Among BOGCMs, only two individual models successfully produced an increasing NPP trend (one model at each site). We caution against the use of models to assess multiannual changes in NPP over short time periods. Ocean color model estimates of NPP trends could improve if more high quality HPLC chlorophyll‐ a time series were available.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".