Intertidal meiofauna of the St Lawrence estuary (Quebec, Canada): diversity, biomass and feeding structure of nematode assemblages
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The meiofauna of the St Lawrence estuary was investigated in the intertidal zone of the Parc du Bic (Quebec, Canada). Five nematode assemblages were distinguished by a cluster analysis: A1 and A2 (upper-tide level); A3 (mid-tide level); A4 and A5 (low-tide level). Discriminant function analysis showed that exposure time during low tide was the most important environmental factor in determining differences between assemblages. Chlorophyll-a, phaeopigments, sediment water content, and per cent of silt followed in the same order. Nematode densities (400–1500 ind 10 cm−2) were found to be lower than those generally reported for other estuarine intertidal zones of the eastern Atlantic coast. Mean nematode biomass in the five assemblages ranged between 96±14 and 248±86 μg Corg 10 cm−2. Deposit feeders were generally the dominant nematode feeding group in terms of abundance and biomass. Correlation of epigrowth-feeders with chlorophyll-a and phaeopigments, respectively, suggested that in the upper-tide level, old or partially degraded phytodetritus contribute more to the diet of this nematode feeding group; and in the low-tide level epigrowth-feeders may rely more on ‘fresher’ phytodetritus.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".