MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2070407659 · doi:10.1117/12.411676

<title>Photosynthetic parameters in the western equatorial Pacific</title>

2001· article· en· W2070407659 on OpenAlexaff
Takeshi Kawano, Hirofumi Okano, Ai Yasuda, Kazuhiko Matsumoto, Ichio Asanuma, Marlon R. Lewis

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOcean Acidification Effects and Responses
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersJST-Mirai Program
KeywordsEquatorSaturation (graph theory)IrradiancePhotosynthesisChlorophyll aDegree (music)Atmospheric sciencesSea surface temperatureClimatologyGeologyPhysicsLatitudeMathematicsGeodesyBiologyOpticsBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Measurements of 'Photosynthesis versus Irradiance' were conducted at 9 stations along the Equator from 145 degrees East to 170 degrees West in December 1999. Samples were obtained at about from the surface and chlorophyll maximum layer. The samples were inoculated with C-13 and incubated for 3 hours in a temperature controlled linear incubator which has 8 light levels. The P-I equation of Platt et al. is employed to calculate the initial slope, Pmax and the saturation parameters. It was La-Nina condition in this period and the influence of 'cold-tongue' came over around 160 degree East. Pmax varied from 1.7 to 4.7 (gC/gChl/h) on the surface. The minimum value of Pmax on the surface was observed at 160 degree East. The value increased gradually to the east and also to the west. On the other hand, the initial slope does not change so much and we cannot see such an east-west variability as Pmax. As it has been pointed out in previous studies, Pmax and the saturation parameter tend to decrees with depth and the initial slope tends to be lower near the surface.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations0
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicOcean Acidification Effects and ResponsesFrench-language works237,207