Bacteria and algae in stream periphyton along a nutrient gradient
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary 1. Stream riffles in southern Ontario and western Quèbec were sampled for biomass (58 stations from 51 streams) and production (22 stations from 21 streams) of algae and bacteria in periphyton to test the hypothesis that bacteria in benthic biofilms compete with algae for nutrients. 2. Algal and bacterial biomass were positively correlated, as were algal and bacterial production. Bacterial production was also positively correlated to algal and bacterial biomass, but the relationship was not significant. The ratio of algal to bacterial biomass did not vary with nutrients whereas algal production tended to increase with nutrients more rapidly than bacterial production. 3. Instream nitrogen concentrations explained 38–58% of the variability in algal biomass and production. Bacterial abundance explained an additional 9–29% of the residual variance in algal production and biomass. However, the relationship between bacterial abundance and algal production and biomass, once nutrients were taken into account, was positive, in contrast to the predicted effect of competition. 4. Hence, we reject our original hypothesis that bacteria in biofilms compete with algae for nutrients and instead suggest that bacteria and algae in biofilms coexist in an association that offers space and resources to sustain production of both groups of organisms.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it