MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7098719652

J. Great Lakes Res. 32:455–470 Internat. Assoc. Great Lakes Res., 2006 Assessment of Phosphorus-microbe Interactions in Lake Ontario by Multiple Techniques

2015· article· en· W7098719652 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCell Image Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPicoplanktonPelagic zonePhytoplanktonPlanktonAutotrophEutrophicationBacterioplanktonWater qualityTrophic state index
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT. Conventional and newly-developed techniques to determine the phosphorus (P) status of Lake Ontario phytoplankton were employed in September 2003, immediately after the passage of the storm system associated with Hurricane Isabel. Surface water (1–5 m) was collected at 29 stations, with selected stations sampled throughout the water column. Chemical estimates of total P concentrations were compared with proxies of P bioavailability: P enrichment bioassays of lake water, alkaline phos-phatase activity (APA), and P-dependent bioreporter assays. Average total P (314 nM) and total chloro-phyll-a (2.12 µg/L) concentrations measured in pelagic surface waters from throughout Lake Ontario suggest an oligotrophic status prevailed across much of this lake during the sample period. Autotrophic picoplankton (0.2–2 µm) displayed the highest growth rates and were grazed at the highest rate, whereas P-enrichment bioassays favored the production of autotrophic nanoplankton (2–20 µm) and autotrophic microplankton (> 20 µm) biomass. Average concentrations of bacteria (2.61 × 1010 cells/L) were higher than those measured during summer in a similar lake (Erie), whereas the average viral density (1.38 × 1010 virus particles/L) was similar. Pelagic stations exhibited higher APA than coastal stations; cyanobacterial bioreporter responses did not show high correlation with APA suggesting that proxies of P-demand based on residual effects (e.g., enzyme production) were not indicative of shorter-term biologi-

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.694
Threshold uncertainty score0.609

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0510.024

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.282 · 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCell Image Analysis Techniques→French-language works237,207→