MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136370883 · doi:10.1093/plankt/fbs097

Characteristics of egg production of the planktonic copepod, Calanus finmarchicus, in the Labrador Sea: 1997–2010

2012· article· en· W2136370883 on OpenAlexaffabout
Erica Head, Leslie R. Harris, Marc Ringuette, Robert W. Campbell

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Plankton Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal ecosystems
Canadian institutionsBedford Institute of OceanographyFisheries and Oceans Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCalanus finmarchicusCopepodCalanusAnimal scienceChlorophyll aBloomBiologyWater columnOceanographyPlanktonCrustaceanEcologyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Egg production rates (EPRs) were measured for Calanus finmarchicus from the Labrador Sea during annual cruises between May and July from 1997 to 2010. EPRs ranged between 0 and 91 eggs f−1 day−1 at 95 stations. Clutch size (CS) was related to female size (prosome length, PL) and both were smallest on the Greenland (2.76 mm, 55.2 eggs) and Labrador (2.86 mm, 60.1 eggs) shelves and largest in the central basin (2.94 mm, 73.0 eggs). CS and spawning frequency (SF, the proportion of females spawning during a 24 h experiment) both increased with increasing female nitrogen content and decreased with increasing C:N ratio. CS and SF were also positively correlated and both increased with an increasing in situ chlorophyll concentration. The relationships between SF (% day−1) and EPR (as eggs f−1 day−1 or % body C or N day−1) and in situ chlorophyll concentration were well described by Ivlev functions (r2 = 0.30–0.34). The residuals from the Ivlev correlations for EPR (but not SF) were significantly negatively correlated with temperature for the central basin (r2 = 0.14), but unrelated over all sub-regions. Over the course of the bloom, as in situ nitrate concentrations decreased, the female N content and the CS decreased and the female C content and C:N increased. Overall, the EPR was most influenced by (i) local feeding conditions (in situ chlorophyll concentration), (ii) the state of the bloom (via effects on female age/condition) and (iii) long-term feeding and temperature history (via effects on female size), although a significant amount of variability remains unexplained.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.651

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations17
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Plankton ResearchSame topicMarine and coastal ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207