MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099754542 · doi:10.4319/lo.2006.51.4.1637

Spatial variability of stable isotopes and fossil pigments in surface sediments of Alaskan coastal lakes: Constraints on quantitative estimates of past salmon abundance

2006· article· en· W2099754542 on OpenAlexaff
Curtis S. Brock, Peter R. Leavitt, Daniel E. Schindler, Susan P. Johnson, Jonathan W. Moore

Bibliographic record

VenueLimnology and Oceanography · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicIsotope Analysis in Ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProfundal zoneSedimentAlgaeAbundance (ecology)Environmental scienceStable isotope ratioNutrientOceanographyHabitatEcologyWater columnSpatial variabilitySedimentary rockGeologyBiologyPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We quantified spatial patterns of stable isotopes of N and C (δ15N, δ13C) and fossil pigment concentrations in the uppermost 10 mm of sediment (,10 yr) from 74 profundal locations and three spawning‐stream discharge areas in Lake Nerka, southwest Alaska. Sediment δ15N (4.3% ± 0.7%) and δ13C (−26.3% ± 1.2%) varied directly (δ15N) or inversely (δ13C) with water column depth, whereas concentrations of most fossil pigments from algae were negatively correlated with depth. Sediment δ15N and δ13C were poorly correlated with either fossil pigment abundance or the local densities of spawning salmon. Instead, coastal nursery lakes appeared to integrate marine‐derived nutrients rapidly into lakewide nutrient pools, suggesting that while individual cores may be used to reconstruct whole‐lake salmon densities, habitat‐specific variations of past fish populations cannot be quantified reliably from sedimentary analyses.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.218 · 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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLimnology and OceanographySame topicIsotope Analysis in EcologyFrench-language works237,207