MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966763866 · doi:10.3354/meps263093

Role of lipids in the maintenance of neutral buoyancy by zooplankton

2003· article· en· W1966763866 on OpenAlexafffund
RW Campbell, JF Dower

Bibliographic record

VenueMarine Ecology Progress Series · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal ecosystems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsNeutral buoyancyBuoyancyCopepodZooplanktonDiel vertical migrationOceanographyEcologyRSSEnvironmental scienceBiologyCrustaceanGeologyPhysicsFisheryComputer scienceThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many types of zooplankton contain large proportions of lipids.Usually, these lipids represent energy storage compounds, but it has also been suggested that lipids play a role in buoyancy regulation.Lipids are thought to determine the overwintering depth of large calanoid copepods, and it has been widely assumed that these organisms overwinter at some 'depth of neutral buoyancy'.However, lipids are generally more compressible, and have a larger thermal expansion than seawater.This means that any depth of neutral buoyancy will be inherently unstable.Model results show that the ascent rates attributable to this instability are small at depth (where temperature changes are small), suggesting a simple way for animals to remain at depth while overwintering.However, model results also show that the buoyant properties of a copepod (or any small plankter) are extremely sensitive to its relative biochemical composition.This presents problems to maintaining vertical position, but may also be useful for vertical migrations.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.181
Teacher spread0.177 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations88
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMarine Ecology Progress SeriesSame topicMarine and coastal ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207