MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3095175900 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2020-0115

Has primary production declined in the Salish Sea?

2020· article· en· W3095175900 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Sophia C. Johannessen, Robie W. Macdonald, Jonathan E. Strivens

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
KeywordsTerrigenous sedimentOncorhynchusOrganic matterOceanographyEnvironmental scienceFlux (metallurgy)SedimentFisheryGeologyEcologyFish <Actinopterygii>ChemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Declining primary production has been proposed as an explanation for the declines in coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) salmon in the Salish Sea since the 1970s. Marine sediments maintain a continuous record of conditions in the overlying water. We used stable isotopes of organic carbon and nitrogen measured in 21 sediment cores to determine the contributions and fluxes of marine-derived and terrigenous organic matter over time. The flux of marine-derived organic matter shows no trend for at least the last 100 years. An apparent increase in the marine flux in recent years is due to remineralization of organic matter as it passes through surface sediments. In contrast, the flux of terrigenous organic matter has increased over the last century in the Strait of Georgia, while in Puget Sound, terrigenous flux peaked in the mid-20th century. Total primary production has neither increased nor decreased in the Salish Sea over the last century. Consequently, a decline in primary production cannot explain recent declines in fish populations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.904
Threshold uncertainty score0.192

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.234
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations15
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences→Same topicMarine and fisheries research→French-language works237,207→