MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4297220107 · doi:10.3389/fmars.2022.948485

Variability in micronekton active carbon transport estimates on the Southwest Coast of Oahu using three different sampling gears

2022· article· en· W4297220107 on OpenAlexafffund
Lian E. Kwong, Alexis A. Bahl, Evgeny A. Pakhomov

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Marine Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsTula FoundationUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsSampling (signal processing)Carbon fibersEnvironmental scienceCobBOceanographyActive carbonFisheryBiologyGeologyMathematicsEngineeringEnvironmental protection

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Micronekton were sampled off the southwest coast of Oahu in October of 2004 as part of the North Pacific Marine Sciences Organization (PICES) Micronekton Sampling Gear Intercalibration experiment (MIE-1). The initiative employed three different micronekton sampling gears: the Cobb Trawl, Isaacs–Kidd midwater trawl (IKMT), and Hokkaido University frame trawl (HUFT). Micronekton catches from the three sampling gears were used to quantify the rates of active carbon transport. We evaluate the differences in total active carbon transport assessed using the data collected by the three gears, with a particular emphasis on taxa- and length-specific differences across gears. The estimates of total active carbon transport derived from the HUFT were significantly lower than those derived from the IKMT. We detected no significant difference between estimates derived using the IKMT and Cobb and the Cobb and HUFT. Dominant groups contributing to active carbon transport varied across sampling gears (Cobb: myctophids and cephalopods; HUFT: decapods and stomatopods; IKMT: cephalopods, myctophids, and decapods); however, no significant differences in the contribution of individual taxa to active carbon transport across sampling gears were detected (e.g., the myctophid active carbon transport contribution for the Cobb was not significantly different from that of the IKMT). Pairwise ratios revealed size-specific differences in the contribution to total flux across gears. As expected, the HUFT and IKMT estimates of active carbon transport were higher for smaller size classes, while estimates from the Cobb were more evenly distributed across size classes. These findings suggest that the differences in total active carbon transport from the three sampling gears are driven primarily by size-based sampling biases, which produce significant differences in biomass estimates. This study provides a foundation upon which future active carbon transport studies may be adjusted to address sampling gear biases.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.144
Threshold uncertainty score0.287

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Marine ScienceSame topicMarine and fisheries researchFrench-language works237,207