Respiration and bacterial carbon dynamics in the Amundsen Gulf, western Canadian Arctic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Respiration rates are fundamental to understanding ecosystem C flux; however, respiration remains poorly characterized in polar oceans. The Circumpolar Flaw Lead (CFL) study provided a unique opportunity to sample the Amundsen Gulf, from November 2007 to July 2008 and follow microbial C dynamics. This study shows that bacterial production (BP) was highly variable, ranging from 0.01 to 2.14 μg C L−1 d−1 (CV = 192%), whereas the range in community respiration (CR) was more conservative from 3.8 to 44.2 μg C L−1 d−1 (CV = 55%), with measurable rates throughout the year. The spring‐summer peak in BP preceded the peak in CR suggesting differential predominant control. From May until July, BP was more related to chlorophyll a concentration (r = 0.68) whereas CR was not. Given the observed high variability, BP was the main driver of bacterial growth efficiency (BGE) (r2 = 0.86). The overall average BGE was low at 4.6%, ranging from 0.20 in winter to a peak of 18.6% during the spring bloom. This study confirms that respiration is an important fate for C in the Amundsen Gulf, and our rate‐based estimates of ecosystem scale CR suggests that considerably more C is respired than could be accounted for by gross primary production (GPP). One of the most plausible explanations for this observed discrepancy is that regenerated primary production is currently underestimated.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".