MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2048260726 · doi:10.1139/z10-030

Marine nutrient transport: anadromous fish migration linked to the freshwater amphipod Gammarus fasciatus

2010· article· en· W2048260726 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Natalie Hanson, Marilyn Fogel, Daniel W. Fong, Stephen E. MacAvoy

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicIsotope Analysis in Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCosmos Club Foundation
KeywordsFish migrationAlosaBiologyGammarusFisherySpawn (biology)EcologyEstuaryNutrientAmphipodaCrustaceanFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Migrating anadromous fish may transfer marine-derived nutrients to oligotrophic tidal fresh water. River herrings (genus Alosa Linck, 1790) are the dominant anadromous genus in Virginia, USA. This study investigates whether marine nutrients derived from spawning Alosa spp. were incorporated into benthic invertebrates by using the stable isotopes of carbon and nitrogen. Spawning Alosa spp. had higher δ13C and δ15N values (–18.5‰ and 13.9‰, respectively) than resident freshwater omnivorous fishes (–25.7‰ and 11.8‰, respectively). In a tidal stream supporting abundant spawning Alosa spp., 13C and 15N enrichment was observed in stream amphipods (Gammarus fasciatus Say, 1818) coincident with the spawning migration of Alosa spp. The δ13C value for G. fasciatus increased from –28.5‰ to –26.0‰ from early to late April then fell to –28.1‰ in early June. A similar trend was observed in mayflies (Heptageniidae). Particulate organic matter and sediments from both streams remained depleted in 13C (between –29‰ and –28‰) and 15N (between 0.5‰ and 3.0‰) during the spawning run of Alosa spp. It is estimated that between 5% and 35% of amphipod biomass may be derived from marine carbon brought to tidal fresh water by spawning Alosa spp.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.182 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Zoology→Same topicIsotope Analysis in Ecology→French-language works237,207→