MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Benthic Metabolism and the Quality of Sediment Organic Carbon

2013· article· en· W2494103439 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan Grant, Barry T. Hargrave

Bibliographic record

VenueBiological Oceanography · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal ecosystems
Canadian institutionsBedford Institute of OceanographyFisheries and Oceans CanadaDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBenthic zoneTotal organic carbonSedimentOrganic matterEnvironmental chemistryCarbon fibersBenthosEnvironmental scienceBayOxygenBlue carbonIntertidal zoneCarbon cycleRemineralisationOceanographyChemistryEcologyEcosystemGeologyBiologyCarbon dioxideCarbon sequestrationInorganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AbstractWe have used changes in oxygen uptake of sediment cores incubated in the laboratory and receiving no particulate input to examine the utilization of labile organic carbon by the benthos. A model is described that predicts a decline in sediment oxygen consumption after primary labile organic carbon (G01) is depleted. Oxygen consumption by cores taken from an intertidal sandflat in Nova Scotia and incubated in darkness (11–13°C) declined after about two months. G01 organic carbon was estimated as ∼8% of total sediment carbon (GT) in the upper 1 cm of sediment. Anaerobic metabolism (based on CO2 production), a significant portion of community metabolism, increased rather than declined during the incubations. Similar calculations were performed using published data on cores from Narragansett Bay. At this location, organic matter in the G01 fraction was 5% of GT. A less labile organic carbon fraction (G02) was estimated to be 44% of GT based on declining oxygen consumption after 27 days. Refractory car...

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)0.000
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 score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations48
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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