Effects of sea ice cover on the swarming behaviour of Antarctic krill, <i>Euphausia superba</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Much of the distribution range of Antarctic krill, Euphausia superba, is covered by permanent or seasonal sea ice. Sea ice extent has been implicated as a major factor affecting reproductive success of krill and krill dispersal, but little is known of the way in which ice cover may influence krill behaviour. This is largely because the under-ice environment is difficult to study. Ship-borne echosounders have, however, detected krill aggregations in midwater in ice-covered regions. We used 120-kHz echograms collected underway during three cruises that crossed ice-covered and adjacent open waters in the Bellingshausen, Weddell, and Scotia seas to compare morphological and next-neighbour characteristics of krill swarms within and without ice cover. No significant differences were detected between the horizontal and vertical extent of swarms or swarm next-neighbour distance in ice-covered or open waters. Distributions of swarm mid-depths did, however, differ significantly between ice-covered and open areas in all three seas, although the direction of difference was not the same in each instance: swarms in the Weddell and Scotia seas were generally shallower under ice than in open water, whereas in the Bellingshausen Sea the opposite prevailed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".