MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4246420030 · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139192637.009

Water motion

2014· book-chapter· en· W4246420030 on OpenAlexaff
Catriona L. Hurd, Paul J. Harrison, Kai Bischof, Christopher S. Lobban

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2014
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal plant biology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDragSeawaterOceanographyGeologyEnvironmental scienceGeophysicsPhysicsMechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The waters of the oceans are in constant motion. The causes of that motion are many, beginning with the great ocean currents, tidal currents, waves, and other forces, and ranging down to the small-scale circulation patterns caused by local density changes (Vogel 1994; Thurman and Trujillo 2004). Hydrodynamic force is a direct environmental factor, but water motion also affects other factors, including nutrient availability, light penetration, and temperature and salinity changes. The forces embodied in waves are difficult to comprehend, unless one has been dangerously close to them; because of the density of water, a wave or current exerts much more force than do the winds. “Imagine a human foraging for food and searching for a mate in a hurricane and you will have only an inkling of the physical constraints imposed on wave-swept life” (Patterson 1989b, p. 1374). The energy amassed from a great expanse of air–ocean interactions is expended on the shoreline as waves break (Leigh et al . 1987). Equally difficult to visualize are the microscopic layers of water next to seaweed surfaces where the seaweeds’ cells interact with water. Too much water motion imposes drag forces that can rip seaweeds from the rocks, but this also clears patches of “new” space for recruitment. Too little water motion and nutrient concentration gradients form at the seaweed surface which can restrict nutrient uptake, but the same gradients are used by seaweeds to sense how fast the surrounding seawater is moving and thereby cue gamete or spore release. Studies of seaweed form and function in wave-exposed and wave-protected sites have provided insights into the trade-offs apparent in some species that allow them to maximize resource acquisition in slow flows and minimize drag forces in fast flows. The following texts and reviews provide the necessary background on fluid mechanics: Denny (1988, 1993, 2006); Vogel (1994); Denny and Wethey (2001). “Marine ecomechanics” is an emerging field that uses a “physical framework” to understand the responses of marine organisms on scales from cells to ecosystems (Denny and Helmuth 2009; Denny and Gaylord 2010). We begin this chapter by describing the hydrodynamic environments in which seaweeds grow, and then discuss the mechanisms by which seaweeds can enhance resource acquisition in slow flows and withstand hydrodynamic forces in wave-exposed sites. We finish with a discussion on the effects of wave action and sediments on seaweed communities.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.144
Threshold uncertainty score0.482

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1440.043

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.155
Teacher spread0.140 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooks→Same topicMarine and coastal plant biology→French-language works237,207→