MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081367793 · doi:10.1364/ao.50.004535

Model of phytoplankton absorption based on three size classes

2011· article· en· W2081367793 on OpenAlexaff
Robert J. W. Brewin, Emmanuel Devred, Shubha Sathyendranath, Samantha Lavender, Nick J. Hardman‐Mountford

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Optics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal ecosystems
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UK
KeywordsPhytoplanktonAbsorption (acoustics)Chlorophyll aPopulationEnvironmental scienceChlorophyllPhysicsAtmospheric sciencesBiologyOceanographyEcologyOpticsBotanyGeologyNutrient

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using the phytoplankton size-class model of Brewin et al. [Ecol. Model.221, 1472 (2010)], the two-population absorption model of Sathyendranath et al. [Int. J. Remote. Sens.22, 249 (2001)] and Devred et al. [J. Geophys. Res.111, C03011 (2006)] is extended to three populations of phytoplankton, namely, picophytoplankton, nanophytoplankton, and microphytoplankton. The new model infers total and size-dependent phytoplankton absorption as a function of the total chlorophyll-a concentration. A main characteristic of the model is that all the parameters that describe it have biological or optical interpretation. The three-population model performs better than the two-population model at retrieving total phytoplankton absorption. Accounting for the contributions of picophytoplankton and nanophytoplankton, rather than the combination of both as in the two-population model, improved significantly the retrieval of phytoplankton absorption at low chlorophyll-a concentrations. Class-dependent specific absorption of phytoplankton derived using the model compares well with previously published models. However, the model presented in this paper provides the specific absorption of three size classes and is applicable to a continuum of chlorophyll-a concentrations. Absorption obtained from remotely sensed chlorophyll-a using our model compares well with in situ absorption measurements.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.157 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations96
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied OpticsSame topicMarine and coastal ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207