Water properties, currents and zooplankton distribution over a submarine canyon under upwelling-favorable conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two canyons (Juan de Fuca and Barkley) off the west coast of Vancouver Island show enhanced upwelling during the summer. Barkley Canyon is also a region of zooplankton aggregation. An intensive survey was conducted to characterize their circulation, water properties and, for Barkley, zooplankton distribution. CTD casts and zooplankton tows were performed in 1997 around Barkley Canyon. Current meter moorings were positioned within both canyons (Juan de Fuca in 1993 and Barkley in 1997). The circulation in Juan de Fuca Canyon is characterized by a southeastward flow at 30 and 75 m but a northward, in-canyon flow at 200 m. The deep flow supports a strong and consistent upwelling from May to October with a strong decrease in temperature equivalent to a 200-m vertical displacement. The northward-flowing California Undercurrent is found to have no significant influence on the upwelling. In Barkley Canyon, there is a weaker upwelling signal that nonetheless explains an important variance in the CTD data. Isopleths upwell towards the head of the canyon and dome over it near the surface. This implies that the influence of the canyon reaches shallower depths than in Astoria Canyon, for example. The circulation of the canyon is assessed from the mooring data: the flow bends over the canyon at 150 m, with a possible cyclonic eddy at the head, while the current is mainly cyclonic at depth. Some in-canyon flow events are observed, which result in moderate upwelling. Zooplankton are found to aggregate along the walls near the head and mouth of Barkley Canyon with different distribution patterns according to the species' vertical and spatial preferences. Interaction with the circulation, especially the deep cyclonic flow, seems to play an important role in this aggregation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".