MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006699159 · doi:10.1139/b04-023

Inhibition of growth in two dinoflagellates by rapid changes in external pH

2004· article· en· W2006699159 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jeffrey S. Dason, Brian Colman

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Botany · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhotosynthesisBiologyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effect of external pH and high CO2 were investigated on growth and photosynthesis in two marine dinoflagellates, Amphidinium carterae Hulburt and Heterocapsa oceanica Stein. Exposure of both species to high CO2 caused a rapid decrease in external pH from 8 to 7 and a complete suppression of growth. Both species were able to grow at pH 7 but the Vmax of photosynthesis was significantly lower than in cells grown at pH 8. There was also a significant reduction in the photosynthetic rate of both species after being on high CO2 for 6 h and a complete loss after 24 h. The internal pH of both species was determined by the distribution of [2-14C]5,5-dimethyloxazolidine-2,4-dione between the cells and the surrounding medium. As the external pH was lowered from 8 to 7, there was a decrease in the internal pH of A. carterae cells, grown at pH 8.0, from 7.92 to 7.04 and in H. oceanica from 8.14 to 7.22. When placed on high CO2, the internal pH of A. carterae further declined to 6.90 and to 7.15. in H. oceanica. This inability to maintain internal pH probably caused the suppression of growth and loss of photosynthetic capacity of high-CO2 cells.Key words: Amphidinium carterae, CO2-concentrating mechanism, dinoflagellates, external pH, Heterocapsa oceanica, internal pH.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.176 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations23
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of BotanySame topicMarine and coastal ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207