MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094708825 · doi:10.1139/f09-122

Benthic algal biomass — measurement and errorsThis paper is part of the series “Forty Years of Aquatic Research at the Experimental Lakes Area”.

2009· article· en· W2094708825 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Helen M. Baulch, Michael A. Turner, David L. Findlay, Rolf D. Vinebrooke, William F. Donahue

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAquatic Invertebrate Ecology and Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersFisheries and Oceans CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBenthic zoneBiomass (ecology)Littoral zoneEnvironmental scienceTemperate climateChlorophyll aEcologyOceanographyBiologyGeologyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While benthic algal biomass is one of the most commonly measured variables within littoral communities, it is also one of the most poorly characterized. The use of chlorophyll a as an estimate of biomass, while easy and inexpensive, can be affected by changes in environmental conditions and algal community composition. Biovolume-based measurements often have high variability and are affected by changes in cell volume due to preservation. Using 12 years of data from the Experimental Lakes Area (northwestern Ontario, Canada) as well as short-term surveys and experimental studies from the Experimental Lakes Area and the Canadian Rocky Mountains, we demonstrate that biovolume and chlorophyll a are often decoupled in the littoral zone of temperate oligotrophic lakes. We recommend that researchers revisit the limitations of both metrics and specifically caution against the use of chlorophyll a as a biomass indicator when light, temperature, or species composition vary significantly.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
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 score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.157

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations30
Published2009
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicAquatic Invertebrate Ecology and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207