MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154282420 · doi:10.4319/lo.2000.45.1.0189

Planktonic production and respiration in oligotrophic Shield lakes

2000· article· en· W2154282420 on OpenAlexaff
Richard Carignan, Dolors Planas, Chantal Vis

Bibliographic record

VenueLimnology and Oceanography · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAquatic Ecosystems and Phytoplankton Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpilimnionRespirationPhotosynthesisPlanktonEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental chemistryPhytoplanktonEcologyBiologyBotanyChemistryNutrientHypolimnionEutrophication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A precise oxygen method was used to measure primary production, community respiration and to determine the importance of exogenous organic carbon as an energy source to planktonic communities in the epilimnion of 12 oligotrophic to mesotrophic Shield lakes. Median photosynthetic parameters observed with the oxygen method were up to twice as high as those measured with 14C in other oligotrophic Shield lakes. Gross photosynthesis was almost always larger than community respiration, with a median P:R ratio of 1.7. We observed strong relationships between respiration and gross photosynthesis, but could not detect any significant trend between respiration or the P:R ratio and the concentration of dissolved organic carbon (DOC). DOC appeared to depress both photosynthesis and respiration. These results argue against the importance of exogenous organic carbon supply as a significant energy source to freshwater planktonic communities. Previously low P:R ratios reported for oligotrophic fresh waters may be due to the uncertain meaning of 14C production data.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 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

Citations203
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLimnology and OceanographySame topicAquatic Ecosystems and Phytoplankton DynamicsFrench-language works237,207