Distribution, abundance and size of <i>Lophelia pertusa</i> coral reefs in mid-Norway in relation to seabed characteristics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents results on the distribution, abundance, and size of Lophelia pertusa coral reefs in mid-Norway (62°30&;–65°30&;N) as compiled from own investigations, earlier scientific reports, reports from fishery surveys and fishermen. Detailed bathymetrical mapping covering an area of ∼600 km 2 along the Halten gas-pipeline, and two nearby areas across the shelf revealed 70 Lophelia reefs. In general, the reefs occurred close to breaks and escarpments. High densities of up to nine reefs per km 2 were found in areas with a rugged seabed topography and with a slope >0·6°. These seabed features have probably positive influence on the transport and concentration of food particles and thus control the local distribution of Lophelia . The area covered by individual reefs varied between 1230 m 2 and 37,310 m 2 with a mean of 5628 m 2 . The height of the reefs was positively correlated with the area. Reefs <10,000 m 2 had a circular outline, while larger reefs were elongate, aligned parallel to the depth contours. Along the pipeline the average density of Lophelia reefs was 0·09 km −2 which indicates that the total number of reefs is ∼6300, covering ∼35 km 2 within the whole study area.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".