MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123185065 · doi:10.1126/science.1157972

Contribution of Fish to the Marine Inorganic Carbon Cycle

2009· article· en· W2123185065 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueScience · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOcean Acidification Effects and Responses
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversity of British Columbia
FundersBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
KeywordsAlkalinityCarbonatePlanktonTotal inorganic carbonForaminiferaCalcium carbonateCarbon cycleCarbon dioxideFish <Actinopterygii>Environmental scienceOceanographyBiomass (ecology)Ocean acidificationCarbon fibersEnvironmental chemistryChemistrySeawaterBiologyFisheryEcologyGeologyEcosystemBenthic zoneMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Oceanic production of calcium carbonate is conventionally attributed to marine plankton (coccolithophores and foraminifera). Here we report that marine fish produce precipitated carbonates within their intestines and excrete these at high rates. When combined with estimates of global fish biomass, this suggests that marine fish contribute 3 to 15% of total oceanic carbonate production. Fish carbonates have a higher magnesium content and solubility than traditional sources, yielding faster dissolution with depth. This may explain up to a quarter of the increase in titratable alkalinity within 1000 meters of the ocean surface, a controversial phenomenon that has puzzled oceanographers for decades. We also predict that fish carbonate production may rise in response to future environmental changes in carbon dioxide, and thus become an increasingly important component of the inorganic carbon cycle.

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.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.632
Threshold uncertainty score0.181

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.211
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