MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159593456 · doi:10.5194/bgd-7-6749-2010

An evaluation of ocean color model estimates of marine primary productivity in coastal and pelagic regions across the globe

2010· article· en· W2159593456 on OpenAlexaff
Vincent S. Saba, Marjorie A. M. Friedrichs, David Antoine, Robert A. Armstrong, Ichio Asanuma, Michael J. Behrenfeld, Áurea Maria Ciotti, Mark Dowell, Nicolas Hoepffner, Kimberly Hyde, Joji Ishizaka, Tomohito Kameda, John Marra, Frédéric Mélin, A. Morel, J. O’Reilly, Michele Scardi, W. O. Smith, Tim Smyth, Shilin Tang, Julia Uitz, Kirk Waters, Toby K. Westberry

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal ecosystems
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPelagic zoneOceanographyOcean colorEnvironmental sciencePrimary productionSea surface temperatureWater columnClimatologySubtropicsMediterranean seaMediterranean climateGeologyEcosystemSatelliteGeographyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Nearly half of the earth's photosynthetically fixed carbon derives from the oceans. To determine global and region specific rates, we rely on models that estimate marine net primary productivity (NPP) thus it is essential that these models are evaluated to determine their accuracy. Here we assessed the skill of 21 ocean color models by comparing their estimates of depth-integrated NPP to 1156 in situ 14C measurements encompassing ten marine regions including the Sargasso Sea, pelagic North Atlantic, coastal Northeast Atlantic, Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea, Arabian Sea, subtropical North Pacific, Ross Sea, West Antarctic Peninsula, and the Antarctic Polar Frontal Zone. Average model skill, as determined by root-mean square difference calculations, was lowest in the Black and Mediterranean Seas, highest in the pelagic North Atlantic and the Antarctic Polar Frontal Zone, and intermediate in the other six regions. The maximum fraction of model skill that may be attributable to uncertainties in both the input variables and in situ NPP measurements, was nearly 72%. Contrary to prior studies, ocean color models were not highly challenged in extreme conditions of surface chlorophyll-a and sea surface temperature, nor in high-nitrate low-chlorophyll waters. On average, the simplest depth/wavelength integrated models performed no worse than the more complex depth/wavelength resolved models. Water column depth (distance to coastlines) was the primary influence on ocean color model performance such that average skill was significantly higher at depths greater than 250 m, suggesting that ocean color models are more challenged in Case-2 waters (coastal) than in Case-1 (pelagic) waters. Given that in situ chlorophyll-a data was used as input data, algorithm improvement is required to eliminate the poor performance of ocean color models in Case-2 waters that are close to coastlines. Finally, ocean color chlorophyll-a algorithms are challenged by optically complex Case-2 waters, thus using satellite-derived chlorophyll-a to estimate NPP in coastal areas would likely further reduce the skill of ocean color models.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.533
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations153
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMarine and coastal ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207