Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our review consolidates published information on the functioning of the microbial \nheterotrophic components of pelagic food webs, and extends this into a novel approach: the ‘microbial \nhub’ (HUB). Crucial to our approach is the identification and quantification of 2 groups of organisms, \neach with distinct effects on food-web flows and biogeochemical cycles: microbes, which are \ngenerally responsible for most of the organic carbon respiration in the euphotic zone, and metazoans, \nwhich generally account for less respiration than microbes. The key characteristics of the microbialhub \napproach are: all heterotrophic microbes are grouped together in the HUB, whereas larger \nheterotrophs are grouped into a metazoan compartment (METAZ); each food-web flow is expressed \nas a ratio to community respiration; summary respiration flows through, between, and from the HUB \nand METAZ are computed using flows from observations or models; both the HUB and METAZ \nreceive organic carbon from several food-web sources, and redirect this carbon towards other foodweb \ncompartments and their own respiration. By using the microbial-hub approach to analyze a wide \nrange of food webs, different zones of the world ocean, and predicted effects of climate change on \nfood-web flows, we conclude that heterotrophic microbes always dominate respiration in the \neuphotic zone, even when most particulate primary production is grazed by metazoans. Furthermore, \nclimate warming will increase HUB respiration and channeling of primary production toward heterotrophic \ncommunity respiration and decrease the corresponding METAZ flows. The microbial-hub \napproach is a significant evolution and extension of the microbial loop and food web, and provides a \nnew, powerful tool for exploring pelagic community metabolism.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".