MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7099985260

Resuspension by fish facilitates the transport and redistribution of coastal sediments

2015· article· en· W7099985260 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFern and Epiphyte Biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnoxic watersGroundfishWater columnNepheloid layerHypolimnionSediment–water interfaceSedimentFjordSubmarine pipeline
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Oxygen availability restricts groundfish to the oxygenated, shallow margins of Saanich Inlet, an intermittently anoxic fjord in British Columbia, Canada. New and previously reported 210Pb measurements in sediment cores compared with flux data from sediment traps indicate major focusing of sediments from the oxygenated margins to the anoxic basin seafloor. We present environmental and experimental evidence that groundfish activity in the margins is the major contributor to this focusing. Fine particles resuspended by groundfish are advected offshore by weak bottom currents, eventually settling in the anoxic basin. Transmittance and sediment trap data from the water column show that this transport process maintains an intermediate nepheloid layer (INL) in the center of the Inlet. This INL is located above the redox interface and is unrelated to water density shifts in the water column. We propose that this INL is shaped by the distribution of groundfish (as resuspension sources) along the slope and hence by oxygen availability to these fish. We support this conclusion with a conceptual model of the resuspension and offshore transport of sediment. This fish-induced transport mechanism for sediments is likely to enhance organic matter decomposition in oxygenated sediments and its sequestration in anoxic seafloors. Sediment focusing occurs where sediments eroded in one

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.752
Threshold uncertainty score0.101

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 teacher head, 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 topicFern and Epiphyte BiologyFrench-language works237,207