Distinguishing between contaminant and reef effects on meiofauna near offshore hydrocarbon platforms in the Gulf of Mexico
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Offshore hydrocarbon production effects are localized in the Gulf of Mexico extending only 200 m from platforms. Effects are caused by the contaminant gradient or the fouling community on platform legs. To distinguish between contaminant and reef effects, meiofauna were sampled at production platforms (reef and contaminant effects), artificial reefs (reef, but no contaminant effects), platform removal sites (contaminant, but no reef effects), and controls (no contaminants or reef effects), and replicated in three blocks. The removal sites had higher concentrations of many contaminants than reef or control sites, but lower concentrations than platform sites. Reduced meiobenthic abundances and altered Harpacticoida community structure were primarily a function of reef effects, not contaminant effects. The habitat influence is likely a result of complex ecological interactions near platforms. The reef effect appears to be important in controlling meiofauna near platforms where contaminants are low because of drilling and production techniques used in the Gulf of Mexico. The finding that contaminants alone do not explain faunal patterns around offshore platforms indicates that future studies should include appropriate artificial reef control sites.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".