Current reversals as determinants of intertidal recruitment on the central Oregon coast
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Dudas, S. E., Grantham, B. A., Kirincich, A. R., Menge, B. A., Lubchenco, J., and Barth, J. A. 2009. Current reversals as determinants of intertidal recruitment on the central Oregon coast. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 66: 396–407. The influence of current reversals on intertidal invertebrate recruitment was investigated using two seasons of nearshore physical and intertidal biological observations along the central Oregon coast, an intermittent upwelling system. In 1998, upwelling periods were punctuated by infrequent wind reversals and widespread increases in nearshore temperature, whereas 1999 was characterized by frequent, shorter wind reversals. In 1998, barnacle recruitment was best at the site experiencing more frequent reversals of the predominantly equatorward currents, higher poleward velocities, and coincident temperature increases. In 1999, barnacle recruitment peaked at the site with greater poleward current velocities, and maximum mussel recruitment at the site with consistent deep (10 m) onshore currents. Barnacle recruitment generally increased with onshore surface currents and temperature; mussel recruitment showed variable, weaker correlations. The data indicate that substantial decreases or complete reversals of upwelling-driven alongshore currents may be important for barnacle recruitment, but topographically driven differences in the response of currents to wind changes may generate local recruitment differences. This suggests that even relatively straight coastlines may have enhanced recruitment zones attributable to the variable local oceanography. Further, the interannual differences observed in current reversals and recruitment patterns highlight the potential importance of upwelling variation for onshore communities.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".