MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Modelling the basin‐scale demography of <i>Calanus finmarchicus</i> in the north‐east Atlantic

2005· article· en· W1988945961 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Douglas C. Speirs, William S. C. Gurney, Michael R. Heath, Simon N. Wood

Bibliographic record

VenueFisheries Oceanography · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCalanus finmarchicusOceanographyOverwinteringSeaWiFSScale (ratio)GeographyClimatologyEnvironmental scienceFisheryEcologyGeologyBiologyPhytoplanktonCrustaceanCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this paper, we report on a coupled physical–biological model describing the spatio‐temporal distribution of Calanus finmarchicus over an area of the North Atlantic and Norwegian Sea from 56°N, 30°W to 72°N, 20°E. The model, which explicitly represents all the life‐history stages, is implemented in a highly efficient discrete space–time format which permits wide‐ranging dynamic exploration and parameter optimization. The underlying hydrodynamic driving functions come from the Hamburg Shelf‐Ocean Model (HAMSOM). The spatio‐temporal distribution of resources powering development and reproduction is inferred from SeaWiFS sea‐surface colour observations. We confront the model with distributional data inferred from continuous plankton recorder observations, overwintering distribution data from a variety of EU, UK national and Canadian programmes which were collated as part of the Trans‐Atlantic Study of Calanus (TASC) programme, and high‐frequency stage‐resolved point time‐series obtained as part of the TASC programme. We test two competing hypotheses concerning the control of awakening from diapause and conclude that only a mechanism with characteristics similar to photoperiodic control can explain the test data.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.208
Threshold uncertainty score0.955

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.166
Teacher spread0.155 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations47
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFisheries OceanographySame topicMarine and coastal ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207