MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362513058 · doi:10.1525/elementa.2022.00094

Particle size distribution at Ocean Station Papa from nanometers to millimeters constrained with intercomparison of seven methods

2023· article· en· W4362513058 on OpenAlexaff
Xiaodong Zhang, Yannick Huot, Deric J. Gray, Heidi M. Sosik, David A. Siegel, Lianbo Hu, Yuanheng Xiong, E. Taylor Crockford, Geneviève Potvin, Andrew M. P. McDonnell, Collin S. Roesler

Bibliographic record

VenueElementa Science of the Anthropocene · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal ecosystems
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParticle-size distributionParticle sizeSizingRangingEnvironmental scienceAerosolMineralogyOpticsPhysicsMaterials scienceGeologyMeteorologyChemistryGeodesy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Particle size distribution (PSD) is a fundamental property that affects almost every aspect of the marine ecosystem, including ecological trophic interactions and transport of organic matter and trace elements. We measured PSDs using a suite of seven instruments in waters near Ocean Station Papa in the Northeast Pacific Ocean. These instruments and their sizing ranges are: Laser In-Situ Scattering and Transmissometer (LISST)-Volume Scattering Function meter (VSF) and Multispectral Volume Scattering Meter (MVSM), both sizing particles from 0.02 µm to 2000 µm; the LISST-100X, from 3 µm to 180 µm; the ViewSizer, from 0.3 µm to 2 µm; the Coulter Counter, from 2 µm to 40 µm; the Imaging Flow CytoBot (IFCB), from 5 µm to 100 μm; and the underwater vision profiler (UVP), from 100 µm to 2000 µm. Together, they cover an unprecedented size range spanning 5 orders of magnitude from 20 nm to 2 mm. The differences in size definition for the different instruments cause biases in comparing PSDs. The absolute differences in PSDs, after correcting for mean biases, were less than a factor of 3 among all the instruments, and within 50% among LISST-100X, LISST+MVSM, Coulter Counter and IFCB. We also found that particles of sizes <50 µm were not very porous; however, porosity must be considered for particles >50 µm. The merged PSDs, ranging from 0.02 µm to 2000 µm, showed little variation in the PSD slope in the upper 75 m of the water column even though the total number of particles decreased with depth. While submicrometer particles are numerically dominant, particles of sizes 1 µm to 100 µm account for 70–90% of the solid volume of particles. We expect that the results of this study will lead to improved estimates of mass and carbon flux in the study area.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.365
Threshold uncertainty score0.878

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations9
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueElementa Science of the AnthropoceneSame topicMarine and coastal ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207