Winter‐to‐summer changes in the composition and single‐cell activity of near‐surface Arctic prokaryotes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We collected surface samples in Franklin Bay (Western Arctic) from ice-covered to ice-free conditions, to determine seasonal changes in the identity and in situ activity of the prokaryotic assemblages. Catalysed reported fluorescence in situ hybridization was used to quantify the abundance of different groups, and combined with microautoradiography to determine the fraction of active cells taking up three substrates: glucose, amino acids and ATP. In surface waters, Archaea accounted for 16% of the total cell count in winter, but decreased to almost undetectable levels in summer, when Bacteria made up 97% of the total cell count. Alphaproteobacteria were the most abundant group followed by Bacteroidetes (average of 34% and 14% of total cell counts respectively). Some bacterial groups appearing in low abundances (< 10% of total cell counts), such as Betaproteobacteria, Roseobacter and Gammaproteobacteria, showed a high percentage of active cells. By contrast, more abundant groups, such as SAR11 or Bacteroidetes, had a lower percentage of active cells in the uptake of the substrates tested. Archaea showed low heterotrophic activity throughout the year. In comparison with temperate oceans, the percentage of active Bacteria in the uptake of the substrates was relatively high, even during the winter season.
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) | 0.001 | 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 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".