Variability in Calanus finmarchicus egg production rate measurements: methodology versus reality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Egg production rates (EPRs) for freshly caught female Calanus finmarchicus increase with increasing in situ chlorophyll concentration to upper limits, but with considerable scatter for individual points around fitted curves. Here, using time course experiments, we investigated whether females exhibit synchronous diel egg-laying behaviour, leading to variations in measured EPRs for different experimental start times. Also, we compared 24 h EPRs from these experiments with results obtained using two other standard 24 h incubation methods. We found (i) female C. finmarchicus from the Labrador Sea did not exhibit diel egg-laying behaviour in spring, (ii) egg-laying was sometimes more frequent during the first 6 h of incubation than thereafter and (iii) standard 24 h incubations underestimated EPRs in 20–36% of experiments due to egg loss. Using results from this and a previous study Head et al. [(2013a) Characteristics of egg production of the planktonic copepod, Calanus finmarchicus, in the Labrador Sea: 1997–2010. J. Plankton Res. 35, 281–298] we developed a new expression relating in situ EPRs to chlorophyll concentration, temperature, female size and season. Season is represented by empirically derived coefficients, which vary regionally reflecting differences in spring bloom dynamics. For 100 experimental stations predicted and measured EPRs were highly correlated (r2 = 0.56, P < 0.001). Additional sources of variability are discussed and recommendations are made regarding EPR measurement methods.
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 | 0.015 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".