Costs and benefits of phytoplankton motility.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The motility skills of phytoplankton have evolved and persisted over millions of years, primarily in response to factors such as nutrient and light availability, temperature and viscosity gradients, turbulence, and predation pressure. Phytoplankton motility is broadly categorized into swimming and buoyancy regulation. Despite studies in the literature exploring the motility costs and benefits of phytoplankton, there remains a gap in our integrative understanding of direct and indirect energy expenditures, starting from when an organism initiates movement due to any biophysical motive, to when the organism encounters intracellular and environmental challenges. Here we gather available pieces of this puzzle from literature in biology, physics, and oceanography to paint an overarching picture of our current knowledge. The characterization of sinking and rising behavior as passive motility has resulted in the concept of sinking and rising internal efficiency being overlooked. We define this efficiency based on any energy dissipation associated with processes of mass density adjustment, as exemplified in structures like frustules and vacuoles. We propose that sinking and rising are active motility processes involving non-visible mechanisms, as species demonstrate active and rapid strategies in response to turbulence, predation risk, and gradients of nutrients, light, temperature, and viscosity. Identifying intracellular buoyancy-regulating dissipative processes offers deeper insight into the motility costs relative to the organism's total metabolic rate.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".