MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011692672 · doi:10.4319/lo.2008.53.6.2749

Aerobic hydrogen production and dinitrogen fixation in the marine cyanobacterium Trichodesmium erythraeum IMS101

2008· article· en· W2011692672 on OpenAlexafffund
Stephen Punshon, Robert M. Moore

Bibliographic record

VenueLimnology and Oceanography · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal ecosystems
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaDalhousie University
KeywordsTrichodesmiumNitrogen fixationNitrogenHydrogenHydrogen productionChemistryChlorophyllAcetyleneCyanobacteriaEnvironmental chemistryBotanyBiologyDiazotrophOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rates of hydrogen production and acetylene reduction were measured in aerobic cultures of the marine cyanobacterium Trichodesmium erythraeum IMS101 grown in a supplemented seawater medium low in combined inorganic nitrogen. Both hydrogen production and acetylene reduction conformed to a circadian pattern with maximum activity in the afternoon. Normalized hydrogen production rates ranged from 0.06 to 0.71 nmol H2 [g chlorophyll a (Chl a)‐1 h‐1, while nitrogen fixation rates, calculated using an assumed ratio of 4 mol acetylene to 1 mol dinitrogen, ranged from 0.12 to 4.71 nmol N2 Chl a−1 h−1. Yields of hydrogen from nitrogen fixation were in the range 0.15–0.48 mol H2 evolved per mol N2 reduced. A comparatively low net rate of H2 uptake was observed in one culture during the dark period (20.01 nmol H2 [g Chl a−1 h−1). These measurements suggest that T. erythraeum is potentially a net source of hydrogen to the low‐latitude surface ocean.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.179
Teacher spread0.169 · 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 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

Citations18
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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