Tight Temporal Consistency of Coral Mass Spawning at the Flower Garden Banks, Gulf of Mexico, from 1997-2003
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mass spawning by the hard corals of the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary has been studied for over a decade. In this report we present observations by a single set of experienced observers on spawning events extending over seven years, on spawning activity, lack of activity and coordination within and between species. This compilation shows that the spawning times of each species are extremely consistent during major events, with onset and hiatus often predictable to within seven minutes, and in some species to within two minutes. In addition to the extraordinary degree of temporal regulation, the other striking feature of the spawning schedule is the uniqueness of most spawning windows. With the exception of Diploria strigosa, each of the major spawning species—Colpophyllia natans, Montrastraea cavernosa, M. annularis, M. faveolata, M. franksi and Stephanocoenia intersepta—has a unique window of time in which it and no other coral species releases gametes. Spawning times for the 2005-2008 seasons are predicted based on these findings.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".