MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4290065549 · doi:10.1038/s41597-022-01554-5

A global dataset of seaweed net primary productivity

2022· article· en· W4290065549 on OpenAlexaff
Albert Pessarrodona, Karen Filbee‐Dexter, Kira A. Krumhansl, Morten Foldager Pedersen, Pippa J. Moore, Thomas Wernberg

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Data · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsBedford Institute of OceanographyFisheries and Oceans Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrimary productivityPrimary productionProductivityAlgaeNet (polyhedron)Primary (astronomy)Primary producersEnvironmental scienceEcologyBiologyMathematicsPhytoplanktonEcosystemNutrientEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Net primary productivity (NPP) plays a pivotal role in the global carbon balance but estimating the NPP of underwater habitats remains a challenging task. Seaweeds (marine macroalgae) form the largest and most productive underwater vegetated habitat on Earth. Yet, little is known about the distribution of their NPP at large spatial scales, despite more than 70 years of local-scale studies being scattered throughout the literature. We present a global dataset containing NPP records for 246 seaweed taxa at 429 individual sites distributed on all continents from the intertidal to 55 m depth. All records are standardized to annual aerial carbon production (g C m −2 yr −1 ) and are accompanied by detailed taxonomic and methodological information. The dataset presented here provides a basis for local, regional and global comparative studies of the NPP of underwater vegetation and is pivotal for achieving a better understanding of the role seaweeds play in the global coastal carbon cycle.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.005

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.242 · 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
GenreDataset

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

Citations69
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific DataSame topicMarine and fisheries researchFrench-language works237,207