Zooplankton retention in the estuarine transition zone of the St. Lawrence Estuary
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We used a three‐dimensional physical‐biological model consisting of a Eulerian circulation model and a Lagrangian particle‐tracking model, which included vertical sinking and swimming, to explore zooplankton retention in the estuarine transition zone of the St. Lawrence Estuary (SLETZ). To test the accuracy of the model, the results were temporally and spatially compared to a passive scalar released simultaneously in the circulation model and to field data for zebra mussel veligers. The model was then used to study the effects of baroclinic density‐driven flow, vertical sinking and swimming, and tidal vertical migration on retention of simulated zooplankton. Baroclinic flow, created by longitudinal and lateral salinity gradients, was a critical part of retention in the SLETZ. In the presence of baroclinic flow, vertical sinking and swimming speeds of $0.2 mm s21 had a large effect on the residence time of the simulated zooplankton as a result of gravitational circulation. Tidal vertical migration—a pattern of upward movement on flood and downward movement on ebb—was a viable retention mechanism for the SLETZ, and its effectiveness was amplified by baroclinic flow. As the speed of tidal vertical migration increased, the simulated zooplankton were concentrated in smaller areas of the SLETZ and moved further upstream.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".