Demography and life cycle of Antarctic krill, <i>Euphausia superba</i>, in the Indian sector of the Southern Ocean: long-term comparison between coastal and open-ocean regions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Size/age composition and reproductive status of Antarctic krill, Euphausia superba, in the central part of the Indian sector of the Southern Ocean, e.g., the Cooperation Sea (Prydz Bay region) and the Cosmonaut Sea, during austral summers 1977-1990 were summarized to estimate growth rates, longevity, reproduction, recruitment, life span, and mortality rates. The life span of Antarctic krill exceeds 5 years in both the Cosmonaut and Cooperation seas. The age composition of the southern and northern groupings differs markedly, with substantial reduction in numbers of early age groups in the northern grouping. Long-term observations of spawning success, recruitment, and age composition suggest that a self-sustained grouping of krill persists in the Cooperation Sea south of the Antarctic Divergence. However, periodic gene flow via recruits from surrounding regions most probably accounts for the lack of spatial genetic differences between the Cooperation Sea and adjacent areas, thus preventing the establishment of an isolated subpopulation in the region investigated. The major factor responsible for the substantial interannual variability in krill dynamics appears to be macroscale oceanographic and atmospheric circulations, which determine a level of environmental isolation of the Cooperation Sea from adjacent waters.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".