Zooplankton abundance and size structure in the North Atlantic from M87/1_518-1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data on zooplankton abundance and biovolume were collected in concert with data on the biophysical environment during the development of the phytoplankton spring bloom at 4 stations in the North Atlantic. Station 1 in the Icelandic Basin was visited four times (26 March, 8 April, 18 April, 27 April), Station 2 in the southern Norwegian Sea was visited three times (30 March, 13 April, 23 April), Station 3 in the North Sea was visited twice (2 April, 15 April) and one intermediate station was visited once. The data were sampled by a Laser Optical Plankton Counter (LOPC, Rolls Royce Canada Ltd.) that was mounted on a carousel water sampler together with a Conductivity-Temperature-Depth sensor (CTD, SBE19plusV2, Seabird Electronics, Inc., USA). Based on the LOPC data, abundance (individuals/m**3) and biovolume (mm3/m**3) were calculated as described in the LOPC Software Operation Manual [(Anonymous, 2006), http://www.brooke-ocean.com/index.html]. LOPC data were regrouped into 49 size groups of equal log10 (body volume) increments (Edvardsen et al., 2002, doi:10.3354/meps227205). LOPC data quality was checked as described in Basedow et al. (2013, doi:10.1016/j.pocean.2012.10.005). CTD data were screened for erroneous (out of range) values and then averaged to the same frequency as the LOPC data (2 Hz). All data were processed using especially developed scripts in the python programming language. The LOPC is an optical instrument designed to count and measure particles (0.1 to 30 mm equivalent spherical diameter) in the water column (Herman et al., 2004; doi:10.1093/plankt/fbh095). The size of particles as equivalent spherical diameter (ESD) was computed as described in the manual (Anonymous, 2006), and in more detail in Checkley et al. (2008, doi:10.4319/lo.2008.53.5_part_2.2123) and Gaardsted et al. (2010, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2419.2010.00558.x).
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".