Variability in broods of the seastar <i>Leptasterias aequalis</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Enormous variation exists in the reproductive output of marine invertebrates (e.g., in the numbers of embryos produced, the volumes of embryos, and the energy that they contain). It is not clear why there is such great variability or what the population-level consequences are. We sampled a population of the brooding seastar Leptasterias aequalis (Stimpson, 1862) to collect basic information on brood sizes, embryo volume, and embryo energy content with a goal to better understand the reproductive ecology of this species. We collected brooding females in February and again in April. We measured the size of their broods and sampled the broods to estimate volume and energy content of the embryos. There was great variability in the volume and energy content of embryos produced by individual females and among the embryos in a single female's brood. Larger adults produced larger embryos, which generally had greater energy content and may be of a higher quality. The average energy content of embryos appeared to increase during the brooding period. Larger females produced larger broods but lost a greater proportion of the embryos. The net result is that larger individuals may not produce any more juveniles than smaller individuals, but those that they do produce may be of a higher quality.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".