MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2181420305 · doi:10.1016/0967-0653(93)94575-j

10.1016/0967-0653(93)94575-j

2000· article· en· W2181420305 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jan Marcin Węsławski, Andrzej Jankowski, Sławomir Kwaśniewski, S Swerpel, Morten Ryg

Bibliographic record

VenueTime to knit · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine Biology and Ecology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFjordBrackish waterOceanographyZooplanktonPelagic zoneEnvironmental sciencePlanktonCalanusSalinityFisheryWater massGeologyBiologyCopepodCrustacean

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two West Spitsbergen fiords, Hornsund (77°N) and Kongsfjorden (79°N) were compared with respect to their hydrology and zooplankton occurrence on the base of two summer surveys made in 1987 and 1988. Both fiords were found to be influenced by four types of masses: Atlantic Waters, Intermediate Atlantic Waters, Local Waters and Brackish Surface Waters, Intermediate Atlantic Waters, Local Waters and Brackish Surface Waters. The amount of fresh water in both fiords reached up to 10% of water volume of the uppermost water layers. Hornsund in August 1987 was richer in mesozooplankton biomass than Kongsfjorden in 1988. Estimated energie value of pelagic prey of marine birds was 180-500 KJ/100 m3 in Hornsund, and 130-200 in Kongsfjorden. Two major plankton communities were found in both fiords: Pseudocalanus community in the inner fiord basins and Calanus dominated community in the outer areas of the fiords. Plankton occurrence in fiords was not linked directly with the temperature — salinity patterns but rather with dynamic phenomena like upwellings and wind drift of surface waters.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.008
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0070.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.9880.987

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.175
Teacher spread0.167 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations51
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTime to knitSame topicMarine Biology and Ecology ResearchFrench-language works237,207