MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Bloom timing explains succession of protistan functional effect trait community structure

2024· preprint· en· W4392788641 on OpenAlexaffabout
Bérangère Péquin, Richard A. LaBrie, Nicolas St-Gelais, Roxane Maranger

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal ecosystems
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyEcologyEcological successionTraitEcosystemBiogeographyPhenologyFunctional ecologyBloomMarine ecosystemBiomass (ecology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Given the important role of protists in trophodynamics and major biogeochemical cycles, identifying which factors influence the distribution of their biomass and species composition is a central tenet in oceanography. However, understanding the drivers of that distribution from a functional trait perspective would allow us to better link protistan biogeography to ecosystem function. Here we evaluated the distribution of protistan functional traits across the Labrador Sea during spring over three consecutive years. More variability in the biogeography of protistan functional traits was explained across water masses, and among years than taxonomic composition. Furthermore, patterns in trait variability were more apparent when site-specific timing of peak chlorophyll- a was considered. By recreating bloom phenology, we found that approximately 20 days prior to peak, mixotrophs were replaced by autotrophs of different size classes, supporting the critical role of bloom timing in structuring protistan community trait succession with consequences on modelling of ecosystem function.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.231
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMarine and coastal ecosystems→French-language works237,207→