Feeding preferences of supralittoral isopods and amphipods
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
We examined the feeding preferences of 3 supralittoral crustacean species in the Pacific Northwest of North America. The isopod Ligia pallasii (Brandt, 1833), the rocky-shore amphipod Traskorchestia traskiana (Stimpson, 1857), and the sandy-beach amphipod Megalorchestia californiana (Brandt, 1851) had similar feeding preferences, suggesting that feeding preferences were based on general algal traits rather than on adaptations particular to specific herbivores. No single trait clearly distinguished low- and high-preference seaweeds, although pH and phenolic compounds may have been important for two chemically defended seaweeds (Desmarestia sp. and Fucus sp., respectively). Feeding preferences of L. pallasii were affected by dietary history, but effects were minor compared with differences among seaweeds. All 3 consumers tended to prefer wrack (aged, stranded seaweeds) over fresh seaweeds of the same species. Our results suggested that increased organic and mineral contents of wrack were important in mediating these preferences, but that toughness and salt and nitrogen contents were not. Reduced levels of defensive compounds may have made wrack more palatable than fresh seaweeds in the case of the two chemically defended seaweeds.
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) | 0.022 | 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