Application of normalized biomass size spectra to laser optical plankton counter net intercomparisons of zooplankton distributions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The optical plankton counter (OPC) and recently the laser OPC (LOPC) have been used primarily in two measurement applications: (1) identification of specific zooplankton species and (2) changes in zooplankton community structure using size‐based spectral measurements. The normalized biomass size spectra (NBSS) are one representation of the size‐based approach. The present study is based on utilizing the NBSS to describe the conditions or characteristics of the zooplankton community that allow a reasonable intercomparison of net samples and LOPC measurements made simultaneously for data collected during two oceanographic cruises carried out in the Lower Estuary and the Gulf of St. Lawrence in spring 2001 and 2002, respectively. NBSS linear slopes <−0.7 indicate the presence of additional plankton material such as diatom aggregates and gelatinous material (present during or immediately following blooms) that are less present in nets and are not intercomparable with LOPC measurements. Conversely, slopes >−0.7, or more “blue water” conditions, indicate the potential for reasonable intercomparison of the two methods. This observation applies to smaller‐sized zooplankton such as copepodites of Calanus spp. with equivalent spherical diameter <900 μm. The measurement of larger Calanus spp. stages (IV–VI) did not seem affected by the presence of additional aggregates or gelatinous material and reasonable intercomparisons between LOPC and net were obtained for both sampling years. The LOPC signals produced by Calanus spp. (IV–VI) were larger and more easily separated.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".