MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982277006 · doi:10.1029/2009gl039743

How islands cause phytoplankton to bloom in their wakes

2009· article· en· W1982277006 on OpenAlexaff
Daisuke Hasegawa, Marlon R. Lewis, Avijit Gangopadhyay

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOceanographic and Atmospheric Processes
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBloomPhytoplanktonOceanographyEnvironmental scienceAlgal bloomGeologyBiologyEcologyNutrient

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The development of phytoplankton blooms in Von Kàrmàn vortex streets in island wakes has been investigated using a coupled bio‐physical model which evolves a geostrophically balanced flow past a relatively small (L = 10 km) oceanic island. Three major processes associated with the “island mass effect” are found to occur in series in our numerical experiment. First, increases in phytoplankton were observed in the lee due solely to passive advection from the deep maximum. Second, following the shedding of cyclonic eddies, upwelled nitrate enhances local primary production in the surface euphotic layer resulting in a phytoplankton bloom. The bloom peaks appeared about two weeks downstream from the island. Third, a weaker bloom is also found in the immediate lee of the island, associated with nutrient injection and longer residence time of upwelled water. The demonstrated detailed features of island mass effect are remarkably consonant with previously observed phenomena in the real ocean.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations81
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicOceanographic and Atmospheric ProcessesFrench-language works237,207