MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1965963076 · doi:10.3354/meps07344

Trophic ecology of siphonostomatoid copepods at deep-sea hydrothermal vents in the northeast Pacific

2007· article· en· W1965963076 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Helene Limén, CJ Stevens, Z Bourass, S. Kim Juniper

Bibliographic record

VenueMarine Ecology Progress Series · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicIsotope Analysis in Ecology
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les Technologies
KeywordsCopepodTrophic levelHydrothermal ventEcologyOceanographyBiologyGeographyCrustaceanHydrothermal circulationGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Siphonostomatoid copepods are often numerically important at deep-sea hydrothermal vents but their role in vent food webs has been little investigated.We examined food sources of 2 vent copepod species, Stygiopontius quadrispinosus and Benthoxinus spiculifer, and their potential role in the diet of paralvinellid worms, using a combination of complementary techniques: (1) stable carbon and nitrogen isotopes, (2) fatty acid composition and (3) morphological examination of copepod mouth structures using scanning electron microscopy.All 3 techniques revealed distinct differences between the 2 copepod species.Fatty acid composition identified bacteria as the main food source for both copepod species and indicated that S. quadrispinosus may be more specialised than B. spiculifer.Stable carbon and nitrogen isotopes provided further evidence that the 2 species partition food sources but feed at the same trophic level.The fatty acid composition and stable isotopes of both paralvinellid worms showed that they are generalists, with a varied diet.Further, in samples where S. quadrispinosus were highly abundant, both worms had stable carbon and nitrogen isotopic compositions that indicated that they were feeding on copepods.Although neither worm appeared anatomically equipped for seizing live copepod prey, we suggest that dead copepods may be consumed along with other particulate debris by the paralvinellid worms.The contribution of copepod remains to the detrital pool in these mineral substratum habitats remains to be quantified.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations28
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMarine Ecology Progress SeriesSame topicIsotope Analysis in EcologyFrench-language works237,207