MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105208628 · doi:10.1139/f2012-050

Secondary production as a tool for better understanding of aquatic ecosystems

2012· article· en· W2105208628 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Marina Dolbeth, Mathieu Cusson, Ronaldo Sousa, Miguel Â. Pardal

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceAquatic ecosystemEcosystemEcologyTrophic levelProduction (economics)Biomass (ecology)Environmental resource managementClimate changeEnergy flowBiologyEnergy (signal processing)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A major challenge for ecologists is understanding ecosystem dynamics and function under environmental and anthropogenic stresses. An approach for addressing this challenge is the analysis of the different components contributing to secondary production (i.e., consumer incorporation of organic matter or energy per time unit) and how this production is influenced by external factors. Production studies have been recognized as a powerful tool in aquatic ecology, with applications in energy–biomass flow studies, trophic ecology, management of biological resources, as well as assessment of environmental stress. In this paper, we summarize ideas and techniques related to the estimation of secondary production and discuss how this approach may be used to evaluate ecological change in aquatic ecosystems. We include a critical review of classical methods and empirical models to estimate secondary production and provide several applications of production studies to current stresses affecting aquatic ecosystems, such as climate change, pollution, and the introduction of non-indigenous invasive species. Our goal is to illustrate the advantages of using secondary production as a more integrative tool for the assessment of the ecosystem function, in particular when subjected to strong anthropogenic and climatic stress.

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 score0.224
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations169
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207