Trophic studies in a high-latitude fjord ecosystem — a comparison of stable isotope analyses (δ<sup>13</sup>C and δ<sup>15</sup>N) and trophic-level estimates from a mass-balance model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stable isotopes of δ 13 C and δ 15 N were used to examine food sources and trophic structure of 65 taxa, representing 19 ecological groups, in a high-latitude ecosystem. Discrimination was made between pelagic and benthic carbon sources, where feeding in most cases reflected the habitat. Trophic levels from these analyses, TL N , were compared with corresponding levels estimated by an Ecopath mass-balance model, TL E , constructed independently of the isotope data. The good correlation between the two methods (r 2 = 0.72) supports the diet composition and the grouping of taxa into ecological groups in the model. However, when estimates diverged, this was often explained by the analyses of few taxa, taxa that were not the most representative for the group, or the analyses of specimens from a limited size range. Some assumed detrivores were assigned high TL N in favour of an abundant microbial community in the sediments. High TL N estimates for many invertebrate taxa, combined with relatively low TL N for fishes, suggest that parts of the benthic food web are decoupled from the classical food web.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".