MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099364484 · doi:10.1098/rsif.2010.0503

Retrieval of phytoplankton size from bio-optical measurements: theory and applications

2010· article· en· W2099364484 on OpenAlexaff
Shovonlal Roy, Shubha Sathyendranath, Trevor Platt

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of The Royal Society Interface · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal ecosystems
Canadian institutionsBedford Institute of OceanographyDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlatteningPhytoplanktonParticle sizeAbsorption (acoustics)PopulationParticle (ecology)Suspension (topology)Biological systemAttenuation coefficientChemistryMaterials scienceAnalytical Chemistry (journal)OpticsChromatographyPhysicsMathematicsEcologyBiologyComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The absorption coefficient of a substance distributed as discrete particles in suspension is less than that of the same material dissolved uniformly in a medium-a phenomenon commonly referred to as the flattening effect. The decrease in the absorption coefficient owing to flattening effect depends on the concentration of the absorbing pigment inside the particle, the specific absorption coefficient of the pigment within the particle, and on the diameter of the particle, if the particles are assumed to be spherical. For phytoplankton cells in the ocean, with diameters ranging from less than 1 µm to more than 100 µm, the flattening effect is variable, and sometimes pronounced, as has been well documented in the literature. Here, we demonstrate how the in vivo absorption coefficient of phytoplankton cells per unit concentration of its major pigment, chlorophyll a, can be used to determine the average cell size of the phytoplankton population. Sensitivity analyses are carried out to evaluate the errors in the estimated diameter owing to potential errors in the model assumptions. Cell sizes computed for field samples using the model are compared qualitatively with indirect estimates of size classes derived from high performance liquid chromatography data. Also, the results are compared quantitatively against measurements of cell size in laboratory cultures. The method developed is easy-to-apply as an operational tool for in situ observations, and has the potential for application to remote sensing of ocean colour data.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.761

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations35
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of The Royal Society InterfaceSame topicMarine and coastal ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207