MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2315131094 · doi:10.5670/oceanog.2005.58

Coastal Ocean Physics and Red Tides: An Example from Monterey Bay, California

2005· article· en· W2315131094 on OpenAlexfundno aff
John P. Ryan, Heidi M. Dierssen, Raphael M. Kudela, Christopher A. Scholin, Kenneth S. Johnson, James M. Sullivan, Andrew M. Fischer, Erich Rienecker, Patrick J. McEnaney, Francisco P. Chávez

Bibliographic record

VenueOceanography · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOceanographic and Atmospheric Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGoddard Space Flight CenterCanadian Space AgencyNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationDavid and Lucile Packard Foundation
KeywordsBayOceanographyGeologyEnvironmental scienceClimatology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dense accumulations of certain phytoplankton make the ocean appear reddish.Some of these "red tides" poison marine life and negatively impact coastal fi sheries and human health.Complex variability in coastal waters coupled with rudimentary understanding of phytoplankton ecology challenge our ability to understand and predict red tides.During fall 2002, multi-scale physical and biological observations were made preceding and during a red tide bloom in Monterey Bay, California.These intensive observations provided insight into the physical oceanography underlying the event.The bloom was preceded by intrusion of a warm, chlorophyllpoor fi lament of the California Current, suddenly changing physical and biological conditions through most of the bay.Enhancement of vertical density stratifi cation followed the intrusion and created conditions favoring dinofl agellates.Favorable environmental conditions led to red tide inception in the northern bay, and advection strongly infl uenced spread of the bloom throughout the bay and out into the adjacent sea.Concentration of dinofl agellates in convergence zones was indicated by the development of dense red tide patches in fronts and in wavelike aggregations having the same scale as internal waves that propagated through the bloom.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.698
Threshold uncertainty score0.607

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.198
Teacher spread0.181 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations69
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOceanographySame topicOceanographic and Atmospheric ProcessesFrench-language works237,207