Seasonal changes in planktonic bacterivory rates under the ice‐covered coastal Arctic Ocean
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bacterivory was determined in surface waters of Franklin Bay, western Arctic, over a seasonal ice‐covered period (winter‐spring, 2003‐2004). The objectives were to obtain information on the functioning of the microbial food web under the ice, during winter (from 21 December 2003 to 21 March 2004) and during spring (from 22 March 2004 to 29 May 2004), and to test whether bacterial losses would increase after the increase in bacterial production following the spring phytoplankton bloom. Chl a concentrations ranged from 0.04 to 0.36 µg L−1, increasing in March and reaching a peak in April. Bacterial biomass showed no consistent trend for the whole period, and protist biomass followed a pattern similar to that of Chl a. Bacterial production increased 1 week after Chl a concentrations started to increase, while bacterivory rates increased very slightly. Average bacterivory rates in winter (0.16 ± 0.07 µg C L−1 d−1) were not significantly different from those in spring (0.29 ± 0.24 µg C L−1 d−1). Average bacterial production, on the other hand, was similar to bacterivory rates in winter (0.19 ± 0.38 µg C L−1 d−1), but higher than bacterivory in spring (0.93 ± 0.28 µg C L−1 d−1). Therefore, bacterial production was controlled by grazers during winter and by substrate concentration in spring.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".