An assessment of phytoplankton primary productivity in the Arctic Ocean from satellite ocean color/in situ chlorophyll‐<i>a</i> based models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We investigated 32 net primary productivity (NPP) models by assessing skills to reproduce integrated NPP in the Arctic Ocean. The models were provided with two sources each of surface chlorophyll‐a concentration (chlorophyll), photosynthetically available radiation (PAR), sea surface temperature (SST), and mixed‐layer depth (MLD). The models were most sensitive to uncertainties in surface chlorophyll, generally performing better with in situ chlorophyll than with satellite‐derived values. They were much less sensitive to uncertainties in PAR, SST, and MLD, possibly due to relatively narrow ranges of input data and/or relatively little difference between input data sources. Regardless of type or complexity, most of the models were not able to fully reproduce the variability of in situ NPP, whereas some of them exhibited almost no bias (i.e., reproduced the mean of in situ NPP). The models performed relatively well in low‐productivity seasons as well as in sea ice‐covered/deep‐water regions. Depth‐resolved models correlated more with in situ NPP than other model types, but had a greater tendency to overestimate mean NPP whereas absorption‐based models exhibited the lowest bias associated with weaker correlation. The models performed better when a subsurface chlorophyll‐a maximum (SCM) was absent. As a group, the models overestimated mean NPP, however this was partly offset by some models underestimating NPP when a SCM was present. Our study suggests that NPP models need to be carefully tuned for the Arctic Ocean because most of the models performing relatively well were those that used Arctic‐relevant parameters.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 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".