MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1977501035 · doi:10.1029/2005jc002967

Plankton are not passive tracers: Plankton in a turbulent environment

2006· article· en· W1977501035 on OpenAlexaff
Warren J. S. Currie, John C. Roff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal ecosystems
Canadian institutionsAcadia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsZooplanktonPlanktonPhytoplanktonTransectEnvironmental scienceOceanographyScalingSpectral lineAtmospheric sciencesRange (aeronautics)Chlorophyll aPhysicsGeologyEcologyBiologyMaterials scienceNutrientAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spectral analysis was performed on a series of oceanographic transects collected using an optical plankton counter and conductivity‐temperature‐depth probe. The “physical” time series (i.e., temperature) power spectra showed a single passive scaling relationship across the entire range of sampling scales (1–8192 s) that was expected from turbulence. However, the “biological” time series possessed more than one scaling region. The Chl a fluorescence had three scaling regions, a flattened (whitened) intermediate range bound by passive regions at scales approximately <30 and >300 s. Cross‐spectral analysis indicated that the chlorophyll‐temperature spectra were similar at these scales. The zooplankton biomass had a single break in the power spectrum and was passive only at scales >300 s, the zooplankton‐temperature spectra being similar only at these scales. The zooplankton‐chlorophyll cross‐spectra were often negatively coupled at the intermediate (300–30 s) scale giving a strong indication that zooplankton grazing was affecting the phytoplankton distributions.

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 score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations31
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres→Same topicMarine and coastal ecosystems→French-language works237,207→