The Distributed Biological Observatory: Linking Physics to Biology in the Pacific Arctic Region + Supplementary File (See Article Tools)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In response to dramatic seasonal sea ice loss and other physical changes influencing biological communities, a Distributed Biological Observatory (DBO) was proposed in 2009 as a “change detection array” to measure biological responses to physical variability along a latitudinal gradient extending from the northern Bering Sea to the Beaufort Sea in the Pacific Arctic sector. In 2010, the Pacific Arctic Group (PAG) initiated a pilot program, focused on developing standardized sampling protocols in five regions of high productivity, biodiversity, and rates of change. In 2012, an academic team received funding to sample all five DBO regions, with collateral support from the Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee (IARPC) DBO Collaboration Team. The IARPC team met monthly from 2012 to 2016 and advanced the DBO from a pilot phase to an implementation phase, including 1) the addition of three new sampling regions in the Beaufort Sea, 2) the goal of linking the observatory to existing community-based observation programs, and 3) the development of a plan for a periodic Pacific Arctic Regional Marine Assessment (PARMA) beginning in 2018. The long-term future of the DBO will depend on active involvement of international and national partners focused on the common goal of improved pan-Arctic assessments of regional marine ecosystems in an era of rapid change.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 it