Understanding the Physical Forcings Behind the Biogeochemical Productivity of the Hudson Bay Complex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Multiple factors influence the spatial and temporal chlorophyll‐a concentration of marine systems. The Hudson Bay Complex has historically been seen as a large, low‐production inland sea situated in the north of Canada. However, recent field campaigns, for the BaySys project, have provided new data on primary production in the bay. Due to the Hudson Bay complex's positioning, it experiences seasonal sea‐ice cover and has many rivers draining into it, resulting in a unique estuarine‐like environment. We use the biogeochemical model BLINGv0 + DIC, coupled to the online regional physical oceanographic and sea‐ice models, NEMOv3.6 and LIM2, respectively, forced with two bias‐corrected Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 5 climate forcings (MIROC5 and MRI) to simulate the base of the ecosystem. The simulations were evaluated with chlorophyll‐a satellite imagery and observations collected in 2018 and analyzed with Empirical Orthogonal Functions to understand the underlying physical forcings and key areas of chlorophyll‐a concentration distribution. The evaluation showed that both simulations successfully reproduced the sea‐ice melt, from west to east and formation, from north to south and correlated well with spatial bloom patterns. The main drivers of phytoplankton growth are the seasonal light and nutrient levels (48% and 54%), the mixed layer depth dynamics (18% and 14%), nutrient supply from rivers (13% and 8%), and sea ice production (7%) for the MIROC5 and MRI simulations, respectively. The sea‐ice dynamics and river runoff played a significant role in the system's productivity. Therefore, with future climate change and increased river regulation projects, up to 20% of overall chlorophyll‐a may be negatively impacted.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".