MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112571450 · doi:10.5194/essd-4-101-2012

Picoheterotroph ( <i>Bacteria</i> and <i>Archaea</i> ) biomass distribution in the global ocean

2012· article· en· W2112571450 on OpenAlexaff
Erik T. Buitenhuis, W. K. W. Li, Michael W. Lomas, David M. Karl, Michael R. Landry, Stéphan Jacquet

Bibliographic record

VenueEarth system science data · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal ecosystems
Canadian institutionsBedford Institute of OceanographyFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UK
KeywordsBiomass (ecology)Abundance (ecology)ArchaeaOceanographyEnvironmental scienceBiologyChemistryBacteriaEcologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. We compiled a database of 39 766 data points consisting of flow cytometric and microscopical measurements of picoheterotroph abundance, including both Bacteria and Archaea. After gridding with 1° spacing, the database covers 1.3% of the ocean surface. There are data covering all ocean basins and depths except the Southern Hemisphere below 350 m or from April until June. The average picoheterotroph biomass is 3.9 &amp;amp;pm; 3.6 μg C l−1 with a 20-fold decrease between the surface and the deep sea. We estimate a total ocean inventory of about 1.3 × 1029 picoheterotroph cells. Surprisingly, the abundance in the coastal regions is the same as at the same depths in the open ocean. Using an average of published open ocean measurements for the conversion from abundance to carbon biomass of 9.1 fg cell−1, we calculate a picoheterotroph carbon inventory of about 1.2 Pg C. The main source of uncertainty in this inventory is the conversion factor from abundance to biomass. Picoheterotroph biomass is ~2 times higher in the tropics than in the polar oceans. doi:10.1594/PANGAEA.779142

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)0.003
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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.904

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations38
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEarth system science dataSame topicMarine and coastal ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207