MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Latitudinal differences in the duration of development of <i>Neocalanus plumchrus</i> copepodites

2003· article· en· W2166720999 on OpenAlexaff
Sonia Batten, David W. Welch, Tanya Jonas

Bibliographic record

VenueFisheries Oceanography · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal ecosystems
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCopepodBiomass (ecology)TransectEnvironmental scienceOceanographyPlanktonLatitudePopulationRange (aeronautics)ClimatologyEcologyBiologyGeographyCrustaceanGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Quasi‐synoptic sampling along a transect from Alaska to California carried out in spring and summer 2000 using Continuous Plankton Recorders reveals that the abundant calanoid copepod Neocalanus plumchrus (Marukawa) reaches the surface at approximately the same time across the region. However, monthly sampling also reveals that the timing of peak biomass (when 50% of the population consists of copepodites at stage CV) occurs about 5 weeks earlier at the southernmost part of its range than at the northernmost part, with intermediate areas having intermediate timings. Surface water temperature differed by about 4°C between the warmer south and the cooler north, and we suggest that such a difference would reduce development duration by about 3 weeks. If food supply in the north is more conducive to lipid accumulation, as seems possible from phytoplankton biomass data, then the use of the differences in timing of peak N. plumchrus biomass in each area as a measure of the differences in development time may not be accurate. We find that the estimate of the time of peak biomass varying by about 5 weeks between north and south may be an exaggeration of the actual difference in the development duration. Temperature is probably the most important factor governing the shorter development duration of N. plumchrus in southern latitudes.

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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.418

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.179
Teacher spread0.162 · 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

Citations26
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFisheries OceanographySame topicMarine and coastal ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207