MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6887437999 · doi:10.1594/pangaea.839142

Density and biomass of two copepod size fractions and various species obtained during Almirante Irizar cruises to the Drake Passage and Scotia Sea (2000-2003)

2012· other· en· W6887437999 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2012
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCopepodAbundance (ecology)Biomass (ecology)CrustaceanPopulation densityFraction (chemistry)Nova scotia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The relative importance of small forms of copepods has been historically underestimated by the traditional use of 200-300-µm mesh nets. This work quantified the distribution and abundance of copepods, considering two size fractions (<300 µm and >300 µm), in superficial waters (9 m deep) of the Drake Passage and contributed to the knowledge of their interannual fluctuations among three summers. Four types of nauplii and eleven species of copepods at copepodite and adult stages were identified, with abundance values of up to 13 ind/L and 28,300 µg C/m**3. The <300-µm fraction, composed of Oithona similis, small cyclopoids and nauplii, dominated the copepod communities in the 3 years; it accounted for more than 77% of the total number and for between 40 and 63% of the total biomass. Changes in density and biomass values among the three cruises differed according to copepod size fraction and water mass; the >300-µm fraction showed no changes among the 3 years, both in Antarctic (density and biomass) and in Subantarctic waters (density), whereas the <300-µm fraction showed higher (density and biomass) values in 2001 both in Subantarctic and in Antarctic waters. Sea surface temperature and its anomaly accounted for the largest proportion of variability in copepod density and biomass, particularly for the <300-µm fraction.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.179
Threshold uncertainty score0.356

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareFrench-language works237,207