Synthesis of Thresholds of Ocean Acidification Impacts on Decapods
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
Assessing decapod sensitivity to regional-scale ocean acidification (OA) conditions is limited because of a fragmented understanding of the thresholds at which they exhibit biological response. To address this need, we undertook a three-step data synthesis: first, we compiled a dataset composed of 27,000 datapoints from 55 studies of decapod responses to OA. Second, we used statistical threshold analyses to identify OA thresholds using pH as a proxy for 13 response pathways from physiology to behavior, growth, development and survival. Third, we worked with the panel of experts to review these thresholds, considering the contributing datasets based on quality of the study, and assign a final thresholds and associated confidence scores based on quality and consistency of findings among studies. The duration-dependent thresholds were within a pH range from 7.40 to 7.80, ranging from behavioral and physiological responses to mortality, with many of the thresholds being assigned medium-to-high confidence. Organism sensitivity increased with the duration of exposure but was not linked to a specific life-stage. The thresholds that emerge from our analyses provide the foundation for consistent interpretation of OA monitoring data or numerical ocean model simulations to support climate change marine vulnerability assessments and evaluation of ocean management strategies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it