A systematic review of indicators and methods used to assess coastal to offshore marine ecosystems in the western Canadian Arctic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Integration and coordination among monitoring programs are needed to better assess the impacts of climate change on Arctic marine ecosystems. The use of common indicators and methods could facilitate this comprehensive understanding. We completed a systematic review of published marine research in the western Canadian Arctic from 1962 to 2021 to identify the commonalities in methods and indicators present in assessments of coastal and offshore ecosystems. Most abundant in our sample were indicators addressing the environmental context, followed by indicators concerning trophic webs and biological organisms, and finally indicators associated with anthropogenic stressors and threats. Ship-based studies located far offshore were by far the most common and focused on indicators that characterized the physical environment and lower trophic levels. Commonalities in data collection methods suggest possibilities for standardization among programs for some parameters. Differences and data gaps highlighted areas for future coordination and the potential to integrate among indicators, especially as some indicators may span coastal to offshore ecosystems whereas individual monitoring programs may not. The results of this review could be used to identify and gather data into broad-spanning datasets. Overall, this systematic review highlights opportunities to link indicators and methods among coastal to offshore programs and will therefore facilitate connectivity and coordination of ecological research and monitoring in the western Canadian Arctic.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".