MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

EVOLUTION OF AN ARTIFICIAL SEAWATER MEDIUM: IMPROVEMENTS IN ENRICHED SEAWATER, ARTIFICIAL WATER OVER THE LAST TWO DECADES

2001· article· en· W2067590146 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Phycology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal ecosystems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeawaterArtificial seawaterPhytoplanktonEmiliania huxleyiBiologyOceanographyEcologyNutrientGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although most phycologists use natural seawater for culturing marine species, artificial media continue to play important roles in overcoming problems of supply and seasonal variability in the quality of natural seawater and also for experiments involving manipulation of micro‐ and macronutrients. Several artificial media have been developed over the last 90 years; enriched seawater, artificial water (ESAW) is among the more popular recipes. ESAW has the advantage of an ionic balance that is somewhat closer to that of normal seawater. The original paper compared the growth of 83 strains of microalgae in natural seawater (ESNW) versus ESAW and determined that 23% grew more poorly in the artificial water. Since 1980, however, the composition of ESAW, as used by the original authors, has changed considerably. In particular, the added forms of phosphate, iron, and silicate have been changed and the trace metal mixture has been altered to include nickel, molybdenum, and selenium. We tested whether these changes improved the ability of the artificial medium to grow previously difficult to grow phytoplankton species. To test this, we selected eight species that had been shown to grow better in ESNW than in ESAW and compared their growth again, using the currently used recipe with all the above modifications. For all but one species ( Apedinella spinifera ), growth rate and final yield was no different between the media but in one case ( Emiliania huxleyi ) was slightly higher in ESAW. No differences in cell morphology or volume were found in any case. We conclude that changes to the enrichment portion of the recipe have significantly improved this artificial seawater medium and that it can be used to grow an even wider range of coastal and open ocean species.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.168
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0030.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.230 · 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