MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157168154 · doi:10.5194/bg-8-1291-2011

Optimizing models of the North Atlantic spring bloom using physical, chemical and bio-optical observations from a Lagrangian float

2011· article· en· W2157168154 on OpenAlexafffund
Witold Bagniewski, Katja Fennel, M. J. Perry, Eric A. D’Asaro

Bibliographic record

VenueBiogeosciences · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal ecosystems
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsDiatomBloomSpring bloomEnvironmental scienceZooplanktonReplicatePhytoplanktonOceanographyFlux (metallurgy)LagrangianAtmosphere (unit)Spring (device)Mixed layerAtmospheric sciencesGeologyMeteorologyBiologyEcologyPhysicsNutrientChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. The North Atlantic spring bloom is one of the main events that lead to carbon export to the deep ocean and drive oceanic uptake of CO2 from the atmosphere. Here we use a suite of physical, bio-optical and chemical measurements made during the 2008 spring bloom to optimize and compare three different models of biological carbon export. The observations are from a Lagrangian float that operated south of Iceland from early April to late June, and were calibrated with ship-based measurements. The simplest model is representative of typical NPZD models used for the North Atlantic, while the most complex model explicitly includes diatoms and the formation of fast sinking diatom aggregates and cysts under silicate limitation. We carried out a variational optimization and error analysis for the biological parameters of all three models, and compared their ability to replicate the observations. The observations were sufficient to constrain most phytoplankton-related model parameters to accuracies of better than 15 %. However, the lack of zooplankton observations leads to large uncertainties in model parameters for grazing. The simulated vertical carbon flux at 100 m depth is similar between models and agrees well with available observations, but at 600 m the simulated flux is larger by a factor of 2.5 to 4.5 for the model with diatom aggregation. While none of the models can be formally rejected based on their misfit with the available observations, the model that includes export by diatom aggregation has a statistically significant better fit to the observations and more accurately represents the mechanisms and timing of carbon export based on observations not included in the optimization. Thus models that accurately simulate the upper 100 m do not necessarily accurately simulate export to deeper depths.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.329
Threshold uncertainty score0.919

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.147 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations69
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiogeosciencesSame topicMarine and coastal ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207