MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145997729 · doi:10.5194/gmd-8-2231-2015

EMPOWER-1.0: an Efficient Model of Planktonic ecOsystems WrittEn in R

2015· article· en· W2145997729 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas R. Anderson, Wendy C. Gentleman, Andrew Yool

Bibliographic record

VenueGeoscientific model development · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal ecosystems
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UK
KeywordsTestbedPlanktonComputer scienceEcosystem modelEcosystemSet (abstract data type)Simple (philosophy)Marine ecosystemModular designEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Modelling marine ecosystems requires insight and judgement when it comes to deciding upon appropriate model structure, equations and parameterisation. Many processes are relatively poorly understood and tough decisions must be made as to how to mathematically simplify the real world. Here, we present an efficient plankton modelling testbed, EMPOWER-1.0 (Efficient Model of Planktonic ecOsystems WrittEn in R), coded in the freely available language R. The testbed uses simple two-layer "slab" physics whereby a seasonally varying mixed layer which contains the planktonic marine ecosystem is positioned above a deep layer that contains only nutrient. As such, EMPOWER-1.0 provides a readily available and easy to use tool for evaluating model structure, formulations and parameterisation. The code is transparent and modular such that modifications and changes to model formulation are easily implemented allowing users to investigate and familiarise themselves with the inner workings of their models. It can be used either for preliminary model testing to set the stage for further work, e.g. coupling the ecosystem model to 1-D or 3-D physics, or for undertaking front line research in its own right. EMPOWER-1.0 also serves as an ideal teaching tool. In order to demonstrate the utility of EMPOWER-1.0, we implemented a simple nutrient–phytoplankton–zooplankton–detritus (NPZD) ecosystem model and carried out both a parameter tuning exercise and structural sensitivity analysis. Parameter tuning was demonstrated for four contrasting ocean sites, focusing on station BIOTRANS in the North Atlantic (47° N, 20° W), highlighting both the utility of undertaking a planned sensitivity analysis for this purpose, yet also the subjectivity which nevertheless surrounds the choice of which parameters to tune. Structural sensitivity tests were then performed comparing different equations for calculating daily depth-integrated photosynthesis, as well as mortality terms for both phytoplankton and zooplankton. Regarding the calculation of daily photosynthesis, for example, results indicated that the model was relatively insensitive to the choice of photosynthesis–irradiance curve, but markedly sensitive to the method of calculating light attenuation in the water column. The work highlights the utility of EMPOWER-1.0 as a means of comprehending, diagnosing and formulating equations for the dynamics of marine ecosystems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.016

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations23
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeoscientific model developmentSame topicMarine and coastal ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207