A survey of the seaweeds of Lennox Passage and St. Peters Bay, Cape Breton Island, Nova Scotia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A novel, bay-scale (i.e. tens of km) survey method was employed to examine algal populations on the southwestern shore of Cape Breton Island, Nova Scotia. Since traditional remote sensing methods were unlikely to be successful in these waters, underwater video and acoustic methods were applied. A transponder positioned towfish housing video camera and sidescan sonar was hauled along predetermined transects perpendicular to shore to provide information on bottom type and algal cover. The towfish data were used to ground truth echosounder data (bottom type and macrophyte canopy height) collected along 5, 10 and 20 m depth contour lines. The survey area was divided into six zones comprising a range of exposure, depth and bottom types. Destructive quadrat samples were collected at each depth, plus shore stations, to provide biomass estimates. Over thirty taxa were enumerated, indicating depths and zones of common occurrence. Ascophyllum was abundant at some of the shore stations. The genera Chondrus, Cystoclonium, Desmarestia, Fucus, Phyllophora, Polysiphonia, and Saccharina were common at 5 m. Desmarestia and Saccharina dominated at 10 m with wet weights sometimes over 1 kg·m-2. Agarum dominated at 20 m. The towfish / echosounder grid sampling system was relatively coarse in order to cover the 140 km2 survey area within 12 days. As a result, the survey did not produce spatially detailed information. However, adequate information was gathered to describe the general characteristics of bottom type and algal cover by zone and for focussing further exploration.
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) | 0.002 | 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".