Influence of peat substrate on the distribution and behaviour patterns of sand shrimp, <i>Crangon septemspinosa</i>, under experimental conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Peat harvesting is a lucrative industry in New Brunswick, Canada, and is for the most part located along the coast. Current methods of mining peatlands are such that high levels of peat fibers are transported by runoff into fresh and marine waters. To understand better the influence of peat substrate on aquatic organisms living in peat-impacted habitats, the sand shrimp (Crangon septemspinosa) was used as a bioindicator. A series of laboratory experiments was conducted in which shrimp were provided with a choice between sand and peat. Long-term studies on starved shrimp confirmed that whereas foraging activities took place on both substrates, shrimp display an overall preference for sand (73% of all shrimp observed were on sand, n=60). When food was deposited on each of the substrates, shrimp generally opted to feed on sand (75% of all shrimp observed were on sand, n=60). After all food on sand was consumed, shrimp tended to move to peat. This was followed by a short period of foraging on both sand and peat with an eventual return to sand in most instances. The presence of food on both substrates did not influence their preference for sand. However, shrimp will move onto a peat substrate to forage if food is present only there. This observation suggests that, although there is a marked preference for sand, peat is not completely repellent to them. Finally, histological investigations of the shrimp digestive system revealed that peat was ingested with food particles and processed in the gastric mill. There was, however, no discernible discrimination between the two substances during ingestion. Finally, starved shrimp on peat substrate did not ingest peat fibers, suggesting that peat is not perceived as an alternative food source.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".