Isotope disequilibrium and mass spectrometric studies of inorganic carbon acquisition by phytoplankton
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given the need to assess potential effects of rising atmospheric CO 2 on aquatic primary productivity, many studies have investigated the physiological mechanisms of inorganic carbon acquisition by a variety of phytoplankton species. Membrane inlet mass spectrometry (MIMS) has become the preferred methodological approach for laboratory experiments, whereas the 14 C disequilibrium method has proven to be particularly useful for field studies. In the present investigation, we explicitly compare results of carbon acquisition measurements obtained with both of these approaches. Testing a range of phytoplankton species from different taxa, we show that both methods provide nearly identical results on the contribution of HCO 3 − and CO 2 relative to net carbon fixation. In contrast, although both approaches yielded highly reproducible estimates for extracellular carbonic anhydrase activity, the results differed significantly between the two methods. By directly comparing these two leading methods, we provide experimental confirmation of key assumptions used for data interpretation and discuss possible effects of assay conditions. Our analysis highlights the individual strengths and weaknesses of different approaches.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it