Cyprinid fishes as samplers of benthic diatom communities in freshwater streams of varying water quality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The diatom composition of natural substrates in streams of different water qualities was compared among samples collected by researchers and samples collected from the intestine contents of three species of Cyprinid fishes: Campostoma anomalum, Pimephales notatus, and Semotilus atromaculatus. Campostoma and Pimephales were found to be robust samplers that efficiently collected diverse, representative diatom samples. Semotilus were adequate diatom samplers but collected the most diverse samples. In no instance were water-quality indices calculated from Pimephales samples significantly different from human-collected composite samples, whereas Campostoma and Semotilus samples diverged slightly from human-collected composite samples. Internal similarities of fish-collected samples were not significantly higher than those of human-collected samples, indicating that the fish were indiscriminately foraging on diatoms. Furthermore, samples clustered primarily by stream, indicating that fish-collected samples of diatoms were as representative of the stream as those collected by human researchers. By all standards measured in this study, these three fish species sample the benthic diatom community of mid-order streams with a facility equal to that of trained ecologists.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".