MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2003876112 · doi:10.1029/2008gl035666

Estimation of phytoplankton loss rate by remote sensing

2008· article· en· W2003876112 on OpenAlexafffund
Li Zhai, Trevor Platt, Charles Tang, Mike Dowd, Shubha Sathyendranath, Marie‐Hélène Forget

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal ecosystems
Canadian institutionsBedford Institute of OceanographyDalhousie University
FundersCanadian Space AgencyNational Centre for Earth ObservationNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UK
KeywordsPhytoplanktonBiomass (ecology)Environmental scienceBloomSpring bloomGrowth ratePhotosynthesisAtmospheric sciencesRange (aeronautics)MathematicsBiologyEcologyNutrientPhysicsBotanyMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A method is presented for estimation of seasonally‐varying, total loss rate of phytoplankton from time series of satellite‐derived phytoplankton biomass data. The loss is calculated as the difference between the (modelled) rate of photosynthesis and the observed, realized rate of change of phytoplankton biomass. A Monte Carlo procedure is used to recover the loss rates. The (biomass‐normalized) total loss rate shows a seasonal cycle with values ranging from 0.5 to 3 mg C (mg Chl)−1 h−1 and shows an abrupt shift during the spring bloom. On the other hand, the absolute loss rate increases during blooms, a consequence of the increase in the biomass. The normalized total loss rate can be further expressed as a time‐varying fraction of the assimilation number. The fraction lies in the range from 0.2 to 0.8. During the increasing (decreasing) phase of phytoplankton blooming, the ratio of growth to total loss increases (decreases), such that this ratio may have value as an ecological indicator for blooms.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations15
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research Letters→Same topicMarine and coastal ecosystems→French-language works237,207→