Relationship between photosynthetic parameters and different proxies of phytoplankton biomass in the subtropical ocean
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Probably because it is a readily available ocean color product, almost all models of primary productivity use chlorophyll as their index of phytoplankton biomass. As other variables become more readily available, both from remote sensing and in situ autonomous platforms, we should ask if other indices of biomass might be preferable. Herein, we compare the accuracy of different proxies of phytoplankton biomass for estimating the maximum photosynthetic rate (Pmax) and the initial slope of the production versus irradiance (P vs. E) curve (α). The proxies compared are: the total chlorophyll a concentration (Tchla, the sum of chlorophyll a and divinyl chlorophyll), the phytoplankton absorption coefficient, the phytoplankton photosynthetic absorption coefficient, the active fluorescence in situ, the particulate scattering coefficient at 650 nm (bp(650)), and the particulate backscattering coefficient at 650 nm (bbp(650)). All of the data (about 170 P vs. E curves) were collected in the South Pacific Ocean. We find that when only the phytoplanktonic biomass proxies are available, bp(650) and Tchla are respectively the best estimators of Pmax and α. When additional variables are available, such as the depth of sampling, the irradiance at depth, or the temperature, Tchla is the best estimator of both Pmax and α.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 it