MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3016866460 · doi:10.3389/fmicb.2020.00569

Variation in Snow Algae Blooms in the Coast Range of British Columbia

2020· article· en· W3016866460 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Casey B. Engstrom, Kurt M. Yakimovich, Lynne M. Quarmby

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Microbiology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPolar Research and Ecology
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaSimon Fraser UniversityGenome British Columbia
KeywordsAlgaeRange (aeronautics)BiologyEcologySnowAlgal bloomOceanographyEnvironmental scienceGeographyPhytoplanktonGeologyNutrient

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Snow algae blooms cover vast areas of summer snowfields worldwide, reducing albedo and increasing snow melt. Despite their global prevalence, little is known about the algae species that comprise these blooms. We used 18S and rbcL metabarcoding and light microscopy to characterize species composition in 31 snow algae blooms in the Coast Range of British Columbia, Canada. This study is the first to thoroughly document regional variation between blooms. We found all blooms were dominated by the genera Sanguina, Chloromonas, and Chlainomonas. There was considerable variation between blooms, most notably species assemblages above treeline were distinct from forested sites. In contrast to previous studies, the snow algae genus Chlainomonas was abundant and widespread in snow algae blooms. We found few taxa using traditional 18S metabarcoding, but the high taxonomic resolution of rbcL revealed substantial diversity, including OTUs that likely represent unnamed species of snow algae. These three cross-referenced datasets (rbcL, 18S, and microscopy) reveal that alpine snow algae blooms are more diverse than previously thought, with different species dominating at different elevations.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.316
Threshold uncertainty score0.969

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations31
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in MicrobiologySame topicPolar Research and EcologyFrench-language works237,207