MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2046204336 · doi:10.1139/f04-204

Developmental differences and a test for reciprocity in the tolerance of <i>Chaoborus punctipennis</i> larvae to ultraviolet radiation

2005· article· en· W2046204336 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff
Anurani D. Persaud, Norman D. Yan

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAquatic Ecosystems and Phytoplankton Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaLehigh University
KeywordsLarvaInstarTrophic levelTemperate climateBiologyUltraviolet radiationEcologyEnvironmental scienceZoologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We estimated the ultraviolet radiation (UVR) tolerance of Chaoborus punctipennis in five 2- to 4-day in situ experiments conducted with third and fourth instar larvae at 0.25, 1.25, 3.0, and 5.0 m in Ruth Roy Lake, a lake with low dissolved organic carbon levels (0.2 mg·L–1). UVR tolerance increased with larval age. Third and late fourth instar LD50 (median lethal dose) ranged from 52.3 to 62.2 J·cm–2 and from 82.4 to 119.6 J·cm–2, respectively, among the four depths. Reciprocity held for UVR exposure down to 5.0 m, i.e., toxicity was independent of dose rate. At any given depth, the LT50 (median lethal time) increased with larval stage, but even at 5.0 m, third and late fourth instars died in less than 10 and 20 h, respectively, under sunny skies. These results suggest that Chaoborus abundance and distribution might be affected by UVR, especially in clear lakes. If UVR levels continue to increase in some lakes because of stratospheric ozone loss and climate change, we predict that UVR damage to Chaoborus will increase in the future, thereby affecting trophic interactions in temperate freshwater food webs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.192 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences→Same topicAquatic Ecosystems and Phytoplankton Dynamics→French-language works237,207→