Climate forcing and the California Current ecosystem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract King, J. R., Agostini, V. N., Harvey, C. J., McFarlane, G. A., Foreman, M. G. G., Overland, J. E., Di Lorenzo, E., Bond, N. A., and Aydin, K. Y. 2011. Climate forcing and the California Current ecosystem. –ICES Journal of Marine Science, 68: 1199–1216. The Climate Forcing and Marine Ecosystem (CFAME) Task Team of the North Pacific Marine Science Organization (PICES) was formed to address climate forcing impacts on ecosystem structure and productivity of marine species. For the California Current system, the Task Team described the physical processes, built an overview of species across trophic levels, and described how the population dynamics of these species have changed over time. Based on the synthesis work, conceptual models were developed describing the potential pathways linking climate forcing, oceanography, and species' responses. The resultant empirical data scenarios draw on ecosystem histories to provide a synopsis of expected change given global climate change. The multidisciplinary team faced challenges and limitations in their attempt to draw connections between the outputs from global climate models (GCMs), the physical processes, and the subsequent impacts on species via the identified pathways. To some degree, there was a mismatch of variables that fishery scientists identified as important in determining species' response to climate and physical forcing and the variables that current GCMs can now resolve at the regional level. These gaps will be important for researchers to consider as they begin to develop higher-resolution climate and regional oceanographic models for forecasting changes in species' productivity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".